> So, has anyone progressed the idea of a <CF_FUSEBOX> tag, which just
> encloses a CFSWITCH, and nothing else? Then we could change our FuseBox
> flavor by dropping in a new CF_FuseBox tag.
I proposed this idea a couple of months ago. I can't remember if anything
meaningful came out of it, but you might want to check the archives. I've
been thinking about it again, recently, but in a different way.
Rather than creating a CF_Fusebox tag for all to use, I think it would be
useful to create a CF_Fusebox tag that is tailored to my personal way of
doing things. If I pick up a new concept (such as nesting), I would drop
Hal's code for nested circuits into my CF_Fusebox code rather than putting
yet another custom tag in the index.cfm.
I think this technique would be especially useful if we came up with a
way of versioning code snippets. Rather than saying "I use
CF_FormURL2Attributes" (of which there are dozens of variations) we
could say "I have the snippet FU2A.hh.20010329 in my CF_Fusebox code."
Another idea that I was thinking about is taking the cf_switch statement
and putting it in an external file rather than making it part of the
index.cfm. That way all the code wrapped around the switch statement
(cftry/catch blocks, cf_bodycontent), etc. would be easier to read.
And we would be able to go directly to our cf_switch statement without
wading through all of that initialization code.
I haven't really thought about it that much yet, but since you brought
it up, I thought I'd share some of the thoughts that I'm kicking around.
Patrick
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
