|
just
to back up Nat's announcement, I've been fortunate to be able to use FEX
for several months now - infact, it's been in running on a production server for
several months now (sorry to all those that were discussing how to neatly handle
errors some time ago). I've had *absolutely* no issues with it at all, i have
customised the fbx_errorcatch.cfm to catch the errors, handle them and then
email the site administrator with a CFDUMP.....
it's
pretty neat - I'm sure the concepts FEX offers will be incorporated in some
form into an Official Release and no doubt FuseQ from JohnQ which he's
releasing at CF_North will offer some more food for thought,
now go
play withit.......
Holy
crap that's a big word, Lee. And you've never even met me!
You
are correct about your emphasis. We are not pretending that the three new API
variables (fusebox.useErrorCatch, fusebox.rethrowError and fusebox.cfcatch)
are "official". But it's also imperative to understand that there is of yet no
explicit standard (which you mention) from which to measure our
deviation. We're simply providing some extensions to what we loosely consider
"the standard", which would most likely be revised before acceptance by the
Standards Committee.
FEX
(pronounced FEHks, like that enjoyable pastime) is good, solid code, currently
in production use, but early adopters might need some refiguring to make their
applications compatible with any future FEX-influenced standard (if it happens
that way).
Thanks for the encouragement and for inciting the clarification, Lee.
I'm looking forward to hearing technical feedback once you put it through its
paces.
NAT
Okay, pulchritudinous, compadre!
But we need to emphasise then, that the new API
variables created by fbx_fusebox_FEX_CF50.cfm are not yet part of any
standard, explicit or otherwise. So, for example, the
"fusebox.cfcatch" variable could well be included in a future standard, but
might be renamed "fusebox.catch" so that the world doesn't think we are a
ColdFusion ghetto.
In other words, although a future Fusebox Standards
Committee will almost certainly be keeping a close eye on
backwards-compatibility for "standard" API variables, they are not so likely
to protect "non-standard" API variables like these.
Caveat emptor (beware of tooth decay).
Once again, though, it looks like a great job.
Thanks heaps,
LeeBB
----- Original Message -----
You got it right, Bjork. Our core is called
fbx_fusebox_FEX_CF50.cfm. It's currently only available for CF5.
You can run plain-old FB3 apps on it with no noticeable
differences. But you can also make use of the additional API vars and the
error handling file(s) to make FEX work it's stuff - and to solve many of
the complaints we hear on this list about Fusebox being unable to handle
errors gracefully.
With the FEX core, you can type in a URL like:
and handle that (obviously) invalid fuseaction yourself - redirect
them someplace, throw a custom error, log the request,
whatever.
But that's just a small piece of the power.
NAT
So, just to clarify, you are saying that you have
created an alternative FB3 core file (ie, fbx_fusebox30_CF50.cfm), one
that nevertheless provides a perfectly compliant implementation of the
Fusebox "specification".
Is that right?
Looks very interesting.
----- Original Message -----
...Take a look at FEX - it's a free, and was
developed by me and Erik (we're
Fusium). The FEX core file is fully
compliant with the existing Fusebox core
files, and should be
compliant with a produced Fusebox specification, once
one is
established. It adds an error handling file called
FEX_errorCatch.cfm
in each circuit, and adds a few variables to the
Fusebox API.
FEX has been used in production by a few members
of the community already,
including me and Erik, for client's
applications.
This is not an official release. This is not a
"Fusebox Council" release. By
using the FEX core, you won't be
compliant with the Fusebox "spec" as it
exists in the fusebox.org
core files. This is not an attempt to subvert the
government
process - we are exploring what we can do with Fusebox, and
that
meant trying something new. We look forward to the continued
maturation of
official Fusebox under the guidance of the Standards
Committee.
_____________________________________________________________________
This
message has been checked for all known viruses by UUNET delivered
through
the MessageLabs Virus Control Centre. For further information visit
http://www.uk.uu.net/products/security/virus/
==^================================================================
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
==^================================================================
_____________________________________________________________________
This message has been checked for all known viruses by UUNET delivered
through the MessageLabs Virus Control Centre. For further information visit
http://www.uk.uu.net/products/security/virus/
|
