Oops. I meant that to go to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please reply over there. Patrick
> -----Original Message----- > From: Patrick McElhaney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, April 12, 2002 1:54 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Circuit aliases discussion > > > >>> from the fbx_settings thread on [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Adam, > > I've been trying to get homeCircuit, targetCircuit, > and thisCircuit ripped out of the spec ever since they > were put in. > > IMHO, a circuit should not make any decisions based on > the value of its alias, and certainly not the values of > any other aliases in the application, because those > names belong to the application and the circuit has > no control over them. > > If one of these variables is compared to a > hard-coded string, the circuit will break as soon > as the alias assigned to that circuit changes. > > The only reasonable uses for these variables are as > follows: > > 1) To compare them to each other. For example, we could > use (fusebox.thisCircuit eq fusebox.homeCircuit) to > determine whether the current circuit is also the > home circuit. > > 2) To ensure the same circuit is called in the next > request without requiring that the circuit know the > value of its alias. > <cfset xfa.doThis = "#fusebox.thisCircuit#.doThat> > > #1 was abstracted into two booleans, fusebox.isHomeCircuit > and fusebox.isTargetCircuit. > > #2 can be accomplished with fusebox.circuit instead. > > > Now let's look at the reasons to remove the variables: > > 1) It would become impossible to write code compares a > circuit's alias to a hard-coded string. > > 2) We wouldn't need to do the reverse-lookup, which is > probably the most expensive operation in the core file. > > 3) It would be easier to implement the specification. > > 4) Fewer things for a new Fuseboxer to learn and understand. > > A couple of days ago, Hal mentioned that Fusebox should be > target to the center of the bell curve of user sophistication, > as described in Alan Cooper's book, The Inmates are Running > the Asylum. (I think everyone on the standards committee > should read that book, BTW.) Cooper does that mostly by > removing features. It's a recurring theme that comes up in > just about every page of the book. > > John Q and I have argued about this topic countless times and > I don't think we're any closer to agreement than Sharon and > Arafat. I'm hoping that this time some of the others on the > list will really give it some thought and weigh in on the > subject. > > Patrick > > > > > > > ==^================================================================ 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 ==^================================================================
