Now Hal he took his own cheap shots at the new "competition". Good for the goose.....
Tim Heald ACP/CCFD :) Application Development www.schoollink.net > -----Original Message----- > From: hal helms [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, May 06, 2002 5:47 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: cferror > > > You're right, Steve: that is illogical and mean-spirited as well. John > is a very decent person who sometimes comes across badly on email. I've > publicly called him on this, but John has given an enormous amount to > the Fusebox community, not the least of which is that John did the first > write of the Fusebox 3 core file and nested layouts is John's baby, > which he worked long and hard on. I think you might show a little > respect. > > What you do with adoption of FuseQ or not is your business, but I think > cheap shots like you've taken are completely uncalled for. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Steve Bryant [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, May 06, 2002 11:16 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: cferror > > > It isn't logical, but I am inclined to lean towards Fusium's approach > just > because John so consistently comes off as an ass on this list. I am sure > > that both approaches have legitimate merit. > > I actually had the opportunity to meet John at this year's Fusebox > conference and talk to him for a few minutes. I was amazed to discover > that > in person he actually seems like a nice guy. John, when I met you I > liked > you. But your posts can be really annoying. > > Also, I went to techspedition.com and I found this line "note: the > Techspedition fusebox core files carry a special license prerequisite". > Interesting. > > At 02:17 PM 5/6/2002 +0800, you wrote: > >Thanks guys, > > > >I feel like I'm in the middle of an ummm... difference of opinion? So > >let me get this straight... In this corner, Techspedition have > >implemented a coding method for advanced error handling, but it's not > >released yet. In the other corner, FEX is a modified core file that has > > >custom API vars for error handling. What JohnQ here is subtly calling > >"some new, unproven hot-fix". ouch. > > > >I'd love to try both of these approaches... they both sound very > >interesting. But seeing as this site is going live in 12.4 seconds, > >I'll stick with what I have so far, which is now working fine - I had > >already figured out something along the lines of what JohnQ mentioned > >with the suppresslayout vars. > > > >I can see that once again, it's going to get very interesting around > >here... > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: John Quarto-vonTivadar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > >Sent: Monday, 6 May 2002 1:37 PM > >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Subject: RE: cferror > > > > > >Kay, > > > >I think you're making the right choice -- when a site is going live > >into production the last thing you want to do is to start using some > >new, unproven hot-fix that could well throw unexpected problems into > >what is already a stressful situation. > > > >Since you're in a fix, one quick and dirty solution is you can use a > >local variable such as suppresslayout which would normally be set to > >FALSE in fbx_settings, and then where you had your cferror, instead of > >using cfabort do <cfset suppresslayout = TRUE> and then in your > >fbx_layouts do <cfif suppresslayout> <cfset fusebox.layoutfile=""> > ></cfif> > > > >make sure this is in all the fbx_layouts files to the suppress will > >"nest" on the way "up" > > > >one doesn't need to modify the core file in any way to handle the > >simplest error trapping, such as what you've described needing, as long > > >as you stop the nested layout process from occuring which is what > >suppresslayout does in the above example. That should at least get you > >through Monday. > > > >If you wish to use a robust implementation to handle your bubbling > >error and exception handling, then call me at the main number at > >Techspedition.com on Monday after 3pm and before 10pm NYC time. Two > >lines of code to achieve bubbling like that won't take long on the > >phone > >-- again the advantage being that anyone working with FuseQ doesn't > have > >to modify the core file or create new fusebox API variables for any > sort > >of bubbling exception handling -- that benefit derives naturally from > >our implementation of the FB3 spec. that everyone is familiar with. > Code > >works out of the box, just like C code runs without incident in C++ ). > > > >p.s. The Synthis people demo'ed the newest version of Adalon this > >weekend and it will *knock your socks off* with phenomenal support for > >wireframing and pre-prototyping. Synthis also announced that the future > > >versions of Adalon will support FuseQ. When hard-core java people like > >Synthis begin supporting and approving FuseQ, then I know we are on the > > >right track. > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Kay Smoljak [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Sent: Sunday, May 05, 2002 10:22 PM > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Subject: cferror > > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > I have a site going live today. I've put a cferror tag in, but when > > > it > > > > > gets triggered it displays its content followed by the normal > > > layout. I tried putting a cfabort tag directly after the cferror, > > > but it didn't have any effect. I'm aware of the modified core files > > > available, but this is going live today. (yeah, yeah, I know, last > > > minute changes are bad). Is there any way to do this? > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Kay. > > > > ==^================================================================ 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 ==^================================================================
