FWIW it seems natural to me that the page layout functions of an app should naturally reside in template-orientated language, in our case CFML (or PHP or whatever). In that case maybe the future for fusebox is to provide the framework, with fuseactions, layout files, out_, in_ and dsp_ files, but act_ files and qry_ files would be replaced by calls to CFCs.
That seems to me to put everything in the right place, and lets us take advantage of the nested layouts of FB3. What's more, you finish up with relatively simple "HTML" files that an HTML coder can understand and modify without intervention from you. Can you imagine doing the same thing with your HTML embedded in Object-oriented code in a CFC ? (IMHO ... I've not tried it yet, and I'm new to Fusebox, though completely sold on FB3 while only part-way through my 1st major app). Cheers, Andy. Dave DeVol wrote: > With the latest by Macromedia and the new CFC's, what do you feel is the > > future of Fusebox? My understanding with CFC's, is that they are a step > towards a standard methodolgy for ColdFusion development, instead of > using third party methodolgies like FuseBox. How will this effect FB3 > and its future? I'm about to start a large FB3 conversion and am running > > into resistance with some of the other tech's. Can anyone provide > support for my case in light of the new release of CFMX? Or am I just > reading to much into the CFC's thing and it will coexist perfectly with > FB? Perhaps FB4 will embrace them? Looking for insight... > > > ==^================================================================ 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 ==^================================================================
