That's kind of what I am doing with my application. 90% of the time, I
don't need a fuseaction because the fuses are on such a simple level that
the default almost always suffices. I don't have a single fusebox with more
than 4 actions in this huge app that I am doing. I could probably break
them down like you said, but it's more effecient to have the index.cfm
handle the rare occasions that I need a different fuseaction than having
completely seperate files. That's the only drawback that I see.
Todd Ashworth --
----- Original Message -----
From: "paul smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Fusebox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2001 7:53 PM
Subject: Re: Musings on Attributes (was Best Practices...)
> I'd like to place this discussion in another context by considering
> expanding HAL's Extended Fusebox architecture to the extreme of having a
> single fuseaction in each directory/folder/fusebox.
>
> Here the fuseaction is implicitly defined by the directory location (so no
> fuseaction variable is needed), no CFSWITCH is needed, and Circuits.cfm is
> more extensive and now serves to define the XFAs.
>
> Comments? Advantages? Disadvantages?
>
> best, paul
>
> At 04:56 PM 3/27/01 -0500, you wrote:
> >i think it's important to also keep in mind that even when things are
nested
> >several fuses deep, that that is by the architect's choice....you can as
> >easily make everything be nested one deep simply by expanding the
> >top-level's Circuits.cfm file.
>
>
>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
