Re: FaFiles: handling defaults

[Lee Borkman]

Hi all,   I really don't think this is anything to fuss about.  This variation is well within the bounds of personal style.  If you have the opportunity to give it a good trial, and if you find that you like it, then go for it.   Without having yet given it a decent experiment myself, I can predict that there will be advantages, and that there will be disadvantages.  Sure, I'm an old-fashioned guy who likes to sit with fbx_switch open constantly, because that's how I know what's going on.  Patrick doesn't work in the same way.  WIth the right tools, Patrick can still turn his separated files into a useful map.  WIth the right tools, I can still find my way around a huge fbx_switch with a couple of keystrokes.  Computers are cool things.  You can work any way that suits you, and configure your work environment to support you in your particular style.   So there's no need to be persuaded that this is not heresy.  It isn't heresy.  Patrick is one of the brightest people floating around this list (I promise you, John, he does know his way around a regular expression), and if he says he is finding this beneficial, then it's well worth trying.   This is not something you can decide by argument, not something you can determine a priori - you simply have to try it.  I suggest that anyone with a few spare hours might put this to the test.  Tell us if you like it, why doncha?   See y'all, LeeBB   Bjork.NET - Postcards gratefully accepted. ----- Original Message ----- From: John Farrar   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. ==^================================================================ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org 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 ==^================================================================