> Jeff Houser wrote:
> The last project I worked on had a page similiar to that.
> The page was
> 2000 lines. There were a whole lot of conditions and a whole lot of
> CFLOCATIONS,
> based on those conditions. It was the most ludricious thing
> I've ever seen.
> I can't imagine how this could be considered efficient, nor
> good coding.
> If the original coder was trying to implement fusebox, I
> think that he
> missed the mark. Either that or the whole fusebox
> methodology is flawed.
Fusebox's main weakness, IMO, is dangerous variable scoping across includes
instead of CF custom tags. Custom tags give you nice encapsulated code
objects with well-defined interfaces, but you can change variables
willy-nilly in the stream of Fusebox CFINCLUDES and break code further down
the chain. I don't like having so many global variables. For large-scale
systems, it can be a nightmare to maintain and debug.
We follow a Fusebox-like approach, but stress custom tags over includes. I
don't know about the use of CFLOCATION in that example, it's not part of the
Fusebox model.
Fusebox must be considered an improvement, though, for sites with no
standardized architecture at all.
Christian Gustafson
Senior Software Engineer
Onvia.com
Work. Wisely.
http://www.onvia.com
(p) 206.373.9307
(c) 206.852.6095
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
'unsubscribe' in the body or visit the list page at www.houseoffusion.com
