I've been following this thread with interest (and a few laughs), so I'll
throw in my 2 cents.
I developed a couple of small web sites with Fusebox based on info that I
gleaned from fusebox.org, and I really liked it. The next project I had to
tackle was a major web application. Not a web site, but a full-blown
business application that was previously written in VB. We had to redevelop
it with a lot of new functionality and deliver it with a browser-based
interface. There are two components - an intranet that is used for a lot of
administration tasks and an extranet that partners use to interact with the
system.
So the system is about 90% data processing and about 10% presentation (as
opposed to most web sites). I spent a few days trying to figure out how to
build such a complex system using fusebox, and I came up with a solution
that is (I believe) very similar to XFB (although I have to admin that I
haven't read the info on Hal's site yet). maybe I'm just dense, but I found
that moving to a hierarchical circuit app design made it much easier for me
to understand and implement.
So that's my take on XFB (or what I understand XFB to be).
Now, onto the attributes scope. I found that having a common scope that all
of my form and url variables were put into, and into which I could add my
own variables, allowed me to write a routine that has saved me dozens, if
not hundreds of hours. Due to the nature of the site, I have written dozens
of stored procedures. Stored procedures are used for all data manipulation
and extraction. In the past I have had to write a call to each stored
procedure (either using CFQUERY or CFSTOREDPROC), but using the attributes
scope I was able to write one routine that would basically take anything
that was placed in the attributes scope, and that was expected by the stored
procedure, and would dynamically build the call. Although the app requires
easily over a hundred different calls to stored procedures, I haven't had to
write a single one.
Now, I could use any scope for that, it doesn't have to be "attributes", but
I do find that a common scope, to which everything is "automatically" added
is incredibly useful.
One other thing that comes to mind about simply using the variables scope
for everything, rather than attributes or another "made up" scope (using a
structure) is that I commonly use a variation on the CF_REUSEFORM tag, which
depends on there being values in two different scopes, "variables" and
"attributes". If I was to use the "variables" scope to replace the
"attributes" scope I'd have to rethink the way this tag is being used (which
might not be such a bad thing, but hey the tag works pretty well).
Have a great weekend,
Bob
-----Original Message-----
From: Roger B. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: March 23, 2001 2:48 PM
To: Fusebox
Subject: RE: Musings on Attributes (was Best Practices...)
> I have to be honest here... I'm not convinced of the nested Fuseboxes.
Steve,
Same here... the whole XFB nesting thing strikes me as a beautiful mess that
solves a non-problem. Custom tags are a fundamental part of CF, and to me,
they have always seemed the cleanest, most natural way of calling another
'box.
--
Roger
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at
http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
