> Well, I must admit that it hasn't to date, and it might not ever
> happen, but I like the fact that it could.
But there are plenty of examples where people have been forced to
rename circuits so that they don't conflict with existing circuits.
So it would seem that the fully qualified method is more practical.
> You might choose a certain structure for version 1 of an
> application. Then
> when you do your requirements analysis for version 2, which includes a lot
> more functionality, you may find that the original structure
> doesn't really
> work that well with the new functions, so you change it. I have seen this
> happen with other types of development (e.g., client/server), particularly
> when a phased approach is taken and all of the requirements aren't fully
> understood before phase 1 is developed.
If you're going to do some major re-working, its going to be a lot of work
no matter what. But even still, I don't think it would necessarily be that
much extra work. You would only need to make changes in the ancestors of
the circuit being moved.
> Another example (I just thought of another one) might be if you are using
> the directory structure for security purposes. You might group a bunch of
> functions under an "admin" circuit, knowing that only administrators have
> access to it. If you later find out that the security requirements have
> changed, you may need to change your directory structure. Of
> course, there
> are better ways to configure security - but that is a very quick way to do
> it if the requirements are not that complex.
I think I would prefer to group my circuits based on function rather than
security. And you should just as easily be able to turn security on and off
at each circuit by manipulating a variable.
> I guess I just like the fact that I'm not stuck with a nesting structure
> once I choose one. I can change it around later in the game
> without having to change a lot of files.
But like you said, you've never actually had to do that. I think the problem
is you're stuck on the directory structure. The directory structure has
always been important when managing content on a web site, and we often did
have to change it around. But this is about structuring applications so that
we can easily attach new pieces.
I tend to think of XFB as a "tree" of circuits. If a circuit isn't at the
leaf node, it depends on all of its branches to do what it's supposed to do.
So you can't really take one of those branches and move it somewhere else,
because that would take away one of the pieces the circuit needs to do
its job.
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
