> ***************************** Team Allaire *****************************
> I've been thinking about this and it seems to me we should take an
> application that's already done in non-Fusebox and then rewrite it with
> Fusebox. By doing this, we can avoid the argument that the non-Fusebox app
> was a straw man, written in order to fail. Does anyone have access to any
> non-trivial applications that are well-written and are not already
> Fuseboxed?
If you really want to do it right, take a Fusebox app, and remove all of
its overhead. Take out FormURL2Attributes and use Form/URL variables
instead of attributes. Then make a .cfm file for every fuseaction, and
cut & paste all of the code that would otherwise be cfincluded there.
Hardcode everything that you wouldn't normally hardcode in fusebox.
Then remove any inefficiencies that may be caused by the conversion
(such as code that was added to a fuse because it was needed in one
fuseaction, but may not be necessary in another fuseaction).
That way the non-fusebox version is written the same way as the
fusebox version, only without any fusebox overhead. (In fact, it
probably will be optimized more than a normal non-fusebox app.)
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
