Brian, thanks for your help. I will take your advice and stick to getting to grips with Fusebox first and probably try to use the MVC approach (if I find that too much for my poor brain to handle I may abandon the MVC until later!). As you point out I can always come back to it later once I have the actual application working.
________________________________ From: Brian Kotek [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wed 16/02/2005 14:04 To: Fusebox Subject: Re: Newbie on Fusebox4.1 Andy, I'm instantiating those CFCs into the application scope because they are Singletons. That means they have no instance data (no state) and that I only want to create one instance (at applicaiton startup) and make all subsequent calls through these instances. All CFCs are definitely NOT suited to be Singletons or instantiated into the application scope like this. To be honest, if you are just starting out learning Fusebox, I would probably hold off on trying to wrap your head around CFCs and object orientation in general. In fact, OOP is actually a much more difficult subject to grasp than Fusebox is. I would focus first on learning how Fusebox works and how you do things like create layouts, content components, and if you're up for it understanding the model-view-controller design approach. The great thing about Fusebox 4.1 is that once you understand it, it is then very easy to start converting parts of your application over to use CFCs and a more OO approach a bit at a time. Basically, I'd caution against trying to learn Fusebox, CFCs, and OOP at the same time. Focus on one at a time. Hope that helps, Brian On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 04:51:42 -0400, Andy Mcshane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Second, with regards to using CFC's, I have looked at the 'Bookstore' example > available from BrianKotek.com and I notice that he initialises all of his > CFC's into the application scope from within application.init.cfm. Is this > the best way forward, load an instance of all of my CFC's into the > application scope and then access then using 'application.cfc.method'? Is > there a better way of using CFC's than this or am I misunderstanding > something again? Oh, by the way just to complicate matters, CFC's are a new > world to me also. I am OK writing them but I am not sure the best way to use > them in the fusebox structure. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Find out how CFTicket can increase your company's customer support efficiency by 100% http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=49 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:12:6621 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/12 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:12 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.12 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
