This seems to be a utopian approach... there are no downsides according to the presentation. These are just thoughts... but let me know what others think. If I am off base... bear with me and make it plain so I can get what you are saying. It took me a few rounds to understand xfa, I love it now! Work with me a few rounds here.
These ref. the numbers on the web link bellow. 1. You can use the find function in studio... why do you need to "visually locate a fuseaction"? 2. The location of the fuseaction in a file or switch doesn't prevent focusing on one fuseaction... but it can prevent seeing how two fuseactions associate to one another. We build common actions in a group together next to each other. Your process would send us in and out of files... segmented logic that would create work. 3. Same point as number one. 4. Could you give some more details here... I am not following. 5. Easier here is a matter of perspective. See number 1 again... use the find function. 6. *** This one has merit. The question is do the benefits exceed the features lost by someone who likes all the fuseactions in one file. 7. Please... learn to use Regular Expressions. Simplicity is pencil, easier is not a virtue unto itself. 8. *** I would like some data on this one... if so, this has some merit. # one group hates a cluttered index/switch file, while the next group hates a cluttered directory... you might want to include an fb directory for those who hate cluttered directories. These are reasons that it could be good you left off. 1. Automation tools can have granular access to files this way. 2. With a nested fb directory... all references will be the same for act/qry/dsp/fb ... you can use(../act_getwddxcfg.cfm) and it works identically at all times. John Farrar >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 03/25/02 07:37AM >>> Patrick, I'm trying out your idea of dynamically including a single "fa_#fusebox.fuseaction#.cfm" file for each fuseaction in fbx_switch.cfm (see http://www.meta-magic.com/cgi-bin/fusewiki?FaFiles) and can see the advantages. What's the best way of implementing defaults though if I don't want missing include errors to be thrown where the fuseaction passed doesn't match an fa_ file? I had a system going for channelling any URL typos/missing elements etc into the defaultcase of the switch but it doesn't seem to work with this approach. I'm sure it's not too difficult to set up some defaults but just wondered if you'd already settled on something. Julian. ==^================================================================ This email was sent to: [email protected] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?bUrFMa.bV0Kx9 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^================================================================
