> 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.
I don't think Hal's is that complex. I use everything in XFB except
the nesting part, and I would really like to use the nesting part,
but it seems flawed. The idea I proposed is really based on how I
originally thought Hal's nesting was supposed to work. It's really
more straightforward, IMHO.
> 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.)
Well, XFB is afterall eXtended fusebox. So it's never really a choice of
whether to use Fusebox or XFB. It's just a matter of choosing which pieces
from each of them work best for the project.
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
