Lee, how do you do MVC with <cfmodule>s? I was having a lot of trouble properly passing complex variables around. That's where I think FuseQ shines. I was having to do some wanko stuff to really get a true MVC separation with cfmodule calls.
Evan --- Lee Borkman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > MessageNow you guys are both saying that and it's > beginning to confuse me - cfmodule calls are within > the same HTTP request, or am I losing the plot? > Same request, different variable space. > > And what I mean about mixing cfincludes with > addtoQ() is that you can't do this (well, you can > but it doesn't do what you might hope): > > <cfset addToQ(member.validate)> > <cfinclude template="act_insertmember.cfm"> > ... and this one is certainly no good: > > > <cfset addToQ(member.validate)> > <cfif memberIsValid> > <cfinclude template="act_insertmember.cfm"> > </cfif> > > Neither of these works, because the execution of the > queued fuseactions is deferred. > > Anyway, I'm just being a good open-minded sceptic. > Is there some functionality that I get from FuseQ > that I could not duplicate using cfmodule, albeit > with a little more fiddling around? (That's not > meant to be a provocation, just a question.) > > Thanks again, > LeeBB > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: hal helms > > I would have liked an immediate execution, but in > the same http request. Otherwise, we just have a > cfmodule, unless I've missed something profound. I > think of this as analagous to the transition from C > to C++. You can use basic Fusebox until you're > ready/need to do something else. And that may be > never. Or it may be that you need it once in a blue > moon. > > I haven't had any problems with integrating > AddToQ() with normal <cfinclude>s. I don't see it as > a fundamental shift in FB at all -- it just adds > some very nice functionality. But I'm sure many > people will be perfectly happy using FB3 just as it > is. And "as it is is" pretty danged cool, IMHO. > -----Original Message----- > From: Lee Borkman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Thanks Hal, > > Yeah, I'm sure looking forward to reading that > book. Both books. > > As for FuseQ, yeah, I'm finding it very > interesting, although I'm afraid that the available > articles only scratch the surface. For the rest, > I'm just trying to intuit the uses of the various > FuseQ functions by reading the code. John has been > very helpful too, when I have mailed him off-list. > > My impression is that John would have > implemented an "immediate execution" solution except > that it seems to be impossible or near-impossible > given the current limitations of cfscript. Is that > correct, John? Is there actually some particular > benefit that comes from the deferred execution, or > is deferred execution merely an unwanted by-product > that pops up when solving the basic requirement, ie > executing multiple fuseactions within the current > variable space, and without the other overhead that > would result from a recursive call? > > As Patrick has noted, he has been using his own > <CF_Call> tag to make recursive calls as simple as > possible for some time now, although that still > leaves the calls in their own seperate > variable-space, and still entails the execution > overhead of any recursive call. I think. Is that > right, McE? Patrick might well argue that the calls > having their own variable-space is an excellent > thing, and indeed that is often a good idea, a > little more short-term hassle traded for a good deal > of longer-term predictability. I am sure that there > must be ways to reduce the overhead of recursive > calls. > > Probably my biggest concern about FuseQ is that > it could radically shift the common practice in > Fusebox away from CFINCLUDE towards AddToQ(), given > that the two methods don't mix (not at a low level > anyway). While that may please many web-development > gureaux, I doubt that it will make novice coders > feel more comfortable ;-) > > Thanks again, matey, > I can't wait to see the FuseQ error-handling > examples. My little brain can't yet imagine how > that is going to work... > > LeeBB > > ==^================================================================ > > > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? LAUNCH - Your Yahoo! Music Experience http://launch.yahoo.com ==^================================================================ 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 ==^================================================================
