Hahahaha. "Benbox." Cute. That's getting to be one heck of a subject line. :)
Benjamin S. Rogers http://www.c4.net/ v.508.240.0051 f.508.240.0057 -----Original Message----- From: hal helms [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2002 7:06 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Benbox was: Re: SuperQ functionality with the STANDARD core (Re: MVCques Amen, Steve. We definitely do NOT want to discourage people from airing ideas - especially controversial ones. -----Original Message----- From: Steve Bryant [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2002 5:16 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Benbox was: Re: SuperQ functionality with the STANDARD core (Re: MVCques I don't think Ben's point is that FB3 can't run on CFMX, but rather that CFCs solve some of the same problems that FB does. Mind you, I still think FB has a great deal of benefit even with CFMX, but I still think his point is a valid one for conversation. Even if you don't agree with it. I think that FB still has a great deal of benefits, but enough people are predicting the demise of Fusebox in favor of CFCs to make it a very valid discussion (I have been arguing that Fusebox still has benefit, but I don't feel like I know enough to make the argument very persuasive). As a side note, although I don't necessarily agree with Benjamin's conclusions, I have to say that he has made his arguments pretty well and he is certainly being good natured in the face of criticism in our community. Just my two cents. Steve At 03:49 PM 5/23/2002 -0400, you wrote: >so far I haven't heard anyone mention any problems with running their >FB3 compliant code on CFMX > >However, there might be a problem if you use any UDF's, at least with >regard to CFMX. It seems that if you define your UDFs in one spot and >then CFMODULE a fuseaction that you will get one of those "same UDF >defined in more than one place " errors (which suggests that UDFs have >a request >scope????) . I haven't had a huge amount of time to confirm this fully but >I've seen at least once instance where it occured, and the same code worked >fine in CF5. > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Benjamin S. Rogers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2002 2:40 PM >Subject: RE: SuperQ functionality with the STANDARD core (Re: >MVCquestion) > > > > Steve, > > > > I converted my own app framework, which differs quite a bit from > > Fusebox in the layout department. However, I don't see any reason > > why the fusebox method can't be converted. I do think the Fusebox > > > > I was going to try converting one of the sample layout apps on the > > Fusebox site but ColdFusion MX seems to be having some difficulty > > with some of the templates. After a bit of debugging, I think the > > problem resides in ColdFusion, not the sample apps. I'm going to > > work on it a bit more (tonight maybe) and may be posting a bug to > > the Macromedia forums. > > > > I'll let you know if I make any progress. Sorry. > > > > Benjamin S. Rogers > > http://www.c4.net/ > > v.508.240.0051 > > f.508.240.0057 > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Steve Nelson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2002 11:33 AM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: SuperQ functionality with the STANDARD core (Re: > > MVCquestion) > > > > > > Well that's news to me. I'd be interested in seeing how that works. > > > > Steve > > > > "Benjamin S. Rogers" wrote: > > > > > > > Well it's really going to be a personal preference. Personally > > > > for me, Fusebox 3 still solves MUCH more than CFCs do. The web > > > > services in CFCs seem great, but I have only needed a web > > > > service 2 times in the last year, whereas I've needed nested > > > > layouts in EVERY project. > > > > > > I actually used CFCs for nesting layouts as well. Though I'm sure > > > it wasn't exactly what Macromedia intended for CFCs, it works very > > > well. Actually, now that I think about, I'm not sure the Allaire > > > programmer that wrote the CFInclude tag intended for Fusebox > > > either. :) > > > > > > Benjamin S. Rogers > > > http://www.c4.net/ > > > v.508.240.0051 > > > f.508.240.0057 ==^================================================================ 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 ==^================================================================
