I like some of the concepts in here...
Although just like the nested circuits that Hal proposed... I'm still
lost as to why everyone wants to add extra processing to nest circuits
through a URL variable versus letting the web server deal with the
nested calls through the directories. Which of these is best?
/directory1/directory2/directory3/index.cfm?fuseaction=whatever
vs.
/index.cfm?fuseaction=directory1.directory2.directory3.whatever
vs.
/index.cfm?circuit=directory1.directory2.directory3&fuseaction=whatever
I just don't see what problem is being solved by doing this. We can
still use the #self# or #XBX.whatever# in each of the situations:
<cfset self="/directory1/directory2/directory3/index.cfm">
<cfset xfa.somefuseaction="somefuseaction">
#self#?fuseaction=#xfa.somefuseaction#
vs.
<cfset self="/index.cfm">
<cfset
xfa.somefuseaction="directory1.directory2.directory3.somefuseaction">
#self#?fuseaction=#xfa.somefuseaction#
vs.
<cfset self="/index.cfm">
<cfset xbx.somecircuit="/directory1/directory2/directory3/">
<cfset xfa.somefuseaction="somefuseaction">
#self#?circuit=#xbx.somecircuit#&fuseaction=#xfa.somefuseaction#
I hate to say it but these all seem far too similar to me. The web
server already handles the nesting of directories. So unless it solves
some grandiose problem which is unclear to me, why would we want to give
this task to CF's slow string parsing functions?
I like the idea of the #self#, although I think it should be an XBX
(eXitBoX) #xbx.somecircuit# similar to what you've got in the Fusebox-X.
That still works well with unit testing and would allow for easily
connecting to outside sites.
I think what you've really hit on with this Fusebox-X is your idea of a
central control panel. That's a slick concept. Connect your control
panel with open source application independent community built
applications and THAT will dramatically improve everyone's applications.
Steve Nelson
You'll NEVER be smart enough, but keep trying!
http://www.secretagents.com/training
(804) 825-6093
"Maddison, David" wrote:
>
> Over the past few months I've been studying XFB, and trying to ascertain
> just why it makes development so much quicker. During my studies I've come
> up with a framework that's based on XFB and EJB, I call it Fusebox-X.
>
> At present it's only in a preview, state, i.e. bits of code are missing, but
> the specifications, should show the general idea. Any comments are welcome
> to me or the list. The spec can be found at
> http://www.wildfusion.com/fuseboxXdocs/index.htm, ignore the comments about
> selected reviews. I've decided to open it up to all fusebox developers,
> since it's based on a few ideas, (such as XFB), which people generously gave
> out to the community.
>
> If I get enough of a response, I'm looking at making Fusebox Studio
> Fusebox-X aware, making it even easier and quicker to build web
> applications.
>
> I look forward to your comments,
>
> << David Maddison >>
> wildfusion
>
> W: http://www.wildfusion.com
> E: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> M: +44 (7747) 024455
> YahooIM: maddisondavid
>
>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
