***************************** Team Allaire *****************************
Exactly put. I find that I don't use frames on public sites, but do quite
often in admin sites.
-----Original Message-----
From: lee borkman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2001 6:46 PM
To: Fusebox
Subject: RE: Tables versus Frames
Hi all,
I have never found that there was any problem at all using frames with
FuseBox. It take a bit of getting you head around of first, but then CLICK!
and all is well. CF_BodyContent is VERY useful, though, because it lets
your fuseactions specify a different header for the top frame, the nav
frame, and the content frames, etc.
The part that spins people's heads around at first is the idea that this is
somehow recursive. But once they get the idea that a two-frame page
actually involves thre entirely separate calls to the web-server and to the
application, they begin to feel a little more comfortable.
I don't use anything like fra_ files, just normal dsp_files. You just need
a FuseAction called "topFrame", or something like that. YOu can even pass
it parameters to specify the fuseactions that will be used to populate the
various sub-frames, but that's not essential.
So I think FuseBox and frames are a perfect match.
Of course, that doesn't mean that I am necessarily a big fan of framed
interfaces. Caveat emptor.
Leeb.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
