zac,
I'm not sure, but you may be over-thinking this. Tony's application is
simple enough without Fusebox. Coding it in that methodology, believe it
or not, would make it even easier for you to modify or troubleshoot,
even with no prior exposure to Fusebox. Fusebox is still CFML, after
all. If he breaks it out in a consistent manner, the files will be
shorter, and the program flow will be more logical and easier to follow.
The only differences that might throw you into unfamiliar territory will
lie in some of the application-level files.
--John
zac wrote:
>
> Tony Schreiber wrote:
>
> > But I would be interested in hearing what you don't like about the idea...
>
> My original reaction was similar if not a bit more restrained. My concern is
> that I don't use fusebox myself and I think that this would limit the
> usability of SMB because if my lack of familiarity with it.
>
> If I use fusebox and SMB doesn't then is implementing SMB into a fusebox
> site as difficult as implementing a fusebox based SMB into a non-fusebox
> site?
>
> I don't use fusebox. I don't have any plans to learn it and I think that my
> plans to utilise SMB will therefore stop dead because I don't want to have
> to learn a development methodology on top of learning to navigate through a
> new codebase.
>
> --
>
> Remember, what we do here might seem like criminal
> fraud but its not. Its marketing!
>
> Scott Adams
>
> email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> WWW: http://www.pixelgeek.com/
>
>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at
http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
