This might be more along the lines of CfObjects.com theirs deals with OO and
inheritance directly. Seems somebody mentioned that they were going to
combine CfObjects and Fusebox methodologies into the best of both worlds.
If you think Hal's is complex go check it out.
One last point, sometimes in building DB's you denormalize in order to
reduce the programming load on the server and the complexity of the SQL and
time to generate them. You would have to decide on a project by project
basis wether to use the various levels of complexity i.e. Fusebox -->
XFB --> CfObjects. (Some may argue the order of complexity here and server
resources.)
Each has its own benefits and weaknesses, you would have to decide which was
more appropriate based on the scope and resources of your project and your
development team's knowledge of them.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Patrick McElhaney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Fusebox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2001 8:30 AM
Subject: RE: Nesting circuits: I just don't get it! :(
>
> > 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
