I'm just completing a major project using the fa_ files idea, and I've go to say it really works for me and is a very appropriate solution to this problem.
There are many advantages to fa_ files ... in addition to the one listed on the fusewiki (URL below) these include ... * It gives you a place where you can fusedoc a fuseaction. * It lets you track changes (by file timestamps etc) on a fuseaction level rather than a switch level. * It nicely separates out the conditional logic (such as did the user press 'accept' or 'reject') from the atomic actions that might result (update the database or else send rejection email). I'm sold on it. Regards, Andy. Patrick McElhaney wrote: > > Barney wrote: > > [snip] > > > A third option that kind of melds the two together, would > > be to have another file (act_) that hold the conditional > > logic, and CFINCLUDES the relevant qry_ files. > I prefer to not have a fuse include another fuse and would > rather put the if statement in the cfswitch. The advantage > of having all of the code just beneath the surface seems to > outweigh the disadvantage of a long <cfswitch>. (Though, > I found another way to avoid the long <cfswitch>: > http://www.meta-magic.com/cgi-bin/fusewiki?FaFiles) > > [snip] ==^================================================================ 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 ==^================================================================
