Andy,
XFA's are a best practice, not required anywhere. The reason behind XFA's is modularity so that a fuse can be reused without having to alter any code inside of the fuse. You could just as easily hard code any cflocation calls directly into the fuses, it just makes it difficult to reuse the same fuse elsewhere in the same circuit. -- Jeff -----Original Message----- From: Andy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, May 17, 2002 9:09 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: FuseQ and XFAs Now that I find interesting. Even if XFAs are not part of the core (the "framework") I always thought they were a part of the core methodology. Isn't it true that you always aim for this ... A) The only thing that references fusefiles is the switch in the same circuit. B) The only place that fuseactions are referenced explicitly is in a switch file (either local circuit or remote). Aren't XFA's essential to implementing that principle ? Andy. Brian Kotek wrote: > John, I'm pretty sure that XFA's are independent of which core you use. > > They're more of a best practice thing than a Fusebox API thing. Nothing > > in the core will scold you if you aren't using XFA's, because they are > just variables that get evaluated to Fuseactions at runtime. XFA's just > > make your life a lot easier when it comes to reusing code or increasing > your fuses' flexibility (as I'm sure you know). So I'm quite sure that > you can XFA to your hearts content. > ==^================================================================ 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 ==^================================================================
