I'm neither averse nor married to it. What I've discovered recently is that I seem to work faster ( entirely for myself ) when I use my own methods -- that is, fusebox only slows me down. I'm by no means saying FB is slow (or even bloated) whether I think it or not -- I've just noticed that it's faster and easier for me achieve the same results using my own methods. What I notice in FB is that I'm continually editing fbx_switch files and fbx_circuits files which equivalents in my own coding methods require no maintenance -- and I think that's probably where a lot of the time is saved.
As to MX being "object based" I'm waiting for them to fix some of the known bugs in CFC's before I dive right into them. I'm just not willing to spend a lot of time developing workarounds for things like persistent variables when I know MM is going to fix those things soon -- just like back in CF 4 when there was a known bug in request variables such that custom tags didn't see them and so they didn't serve the purpose for which they were created. ;P IIRC they fixed that right away in the 4.01 upgrade. > I agree....Down with Fuse Blah....To bloated....Look into > MVC since CFMX is a Object Based language now.... > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Behalf Of Marlon Moyer > Sent: Friday, February 28, 2003 7:07 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Fusebox 3 question on fbx_fusebox_XXXX > I've been fuseboxing for a while now and lately I've been > trying to wean > myself from it. I'm not real thrilled about the nested > layouts and > such, but I can't seem to find a way to duplicate the ease > of navigation > that it presents. I've been toying around with ideas > about how to > emulate the abstraction of the directory trees. Have you > found a > reliable method? > Thanks. > Marlon > S. Isaac Dealey wrote: >> >>I don't use FB for my own development -- I use the >>attributes trick so that >>I can call certain base templates as custom tags if it'll >>help, and I use > an >>equivalent of the fuseaction variable and the fbx_switch >>that's more > dynamic >>(actually just dynamic includes). Speaking of which -- >>apparently a few >>people have run into problems with migrating FB2/3 >>applications to CF MX as >>a result of the 64k method limitation of the underlying >>Java engine. >>Apparently when MX generates a java class for a new >>template, it puts >>everything in a single method, so if you've got a >>switch-case in the >>template it'll examine all those includes and include the >>contents of all >>those included files in the generated Java code. So even >>if your switch > case >>statement only has 2 cases like <cfswitch >>expression="#fusebox.fuseaction#"><cfcase >>value="a"><cfinclude >>template="a.cfm"></cfcase><cfcase value="b"><cfinclude >>template="b"></cfcase></cfswitch> you could still exceed >>the 64k limit if >>the CF Server generates more than 64k of combined Java >>code from a.cfm and >>b.cfm (i.e. between them, not per file). >> >> >> >> > ----------------------------------------------- > To post, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To unsubscribe: > Send UNSUBSCRIBE to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To subscribe / unsubscribe: http://www.dfwcfug.org > ----------------------------------------------- > To post, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To unsubscribe: > Send UNSUBSCRIBE to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To subscribe / unsubscribe: http://www.dfwcfug.org s. isaac dealey 954-776-0046 new epoch http://www.turnkey.to lead architect, tapestry cms http://products.turnkey.to tapestry api is opensource http://www.turnkey.to/tapi certified advanced coldfusion 5 developer http://www.macromedia.com/v1/handlers/index.cfm?ID=21816 ----------------------------------------------- To post, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe: Send UNSUBSCRIBE to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe / unsubscribe: http://www.dfwcfug.org
