> Well,
>
> you just have to amend your conflicting abbreviations. That is one slight
> inconvenience that Hal's XFB imposes.
Thanks Bjork! That's the answer I was looking for.
Has anyone thought about a way to get around that "slight
inconvenience." It seems like it shouldn't be that hard. All
we would have to do is make sure we include the context from
which a circuit was referenced.
I think the problem is the fact that the current system only
allows a two part fuseaction. circuit.fuseacion.
But shouldn't we be able to reference fuseactions in
the following manner?: grandparent.parent.child.fuseaction?
I have to refer directly to child.fuseaction and add a
mapping to child in my circuits.cfm under grandparent.
If we took away this "feature" we would be able to
simplify the way a circuit calls itself. The fuseaction
in child could be referenced in any of the following
ways:
>From grandparent:
#ctx#.parent.child.fuseaction
#ctx#.child.fuseaction (with child translated to "parent.child" by
circuits.cfm)
>From parent:
#ctx#.child.fuseaction
>From child:
#ctx#.fuseaction
#ctx# refers to the "current context"; that is, what
name the home app uses to refer to the fuseaction that
is setting the XFA. As each layer is peeled off of the
fuseaction, it would be dumped into ctx.
Does that make sense?
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
