>
> So again, I pose the question. Why DON'T you just use the fully
> qualified fuseaction?
>
Only because I have yet to come across an app to be XFB'ed which couldn't be
done quickly at the single nesting level. If it was a piece of already
written code, say a shopping cart, then it itself was already nested and so
I don't have to reach any deeper than calling it singly. I'm also very
much in favor of our tema being able to use sub-nested code without having
to be tied to the naming conventions already within that code, and also in
having sub-dirs that are XFB or regular FB or non-FB and NOT having them
Circuited to the top level FB. I don't see how the "fully qualified
fuseaction", which *is* a solution of course, saves me any real amounts of
time ...that is, if it takes me 20 min to configure an app the XFB way and
10 min to configure it the full qualified way, then it's not a huge savings
to me, and that savings will disappear if i have to spend any large amounts
of time debugging (either way). What would save time would be ways to
quickly attach previously written code to a XFB app -- from what I've seen
described both these techniques are on the same order of magnitude for doing
that (and probably for maintaining that). I guess I'm not seeing a major
benefit pro or con.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
