That would be a sharp break from Fusebox 3, Balazs, which places the responsibility for figuring out the directory structure at the home level. At first glance, I wouldn't think it would be too helpful, but [EMAIL PROTECTED] would be the place to discuss this in greater detail.
-----Original Message----- From: Balazs Wellisch [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2002 12:50 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: MVC Well, this brings me to an issue I've been thinking about for some time now. Wouldn't it be nice to be able to refer to each model/view/controller as view.user, model.user, and controller.user? I think this looks a lot nicer than vUser,mUser,cUser. So the issue is, could the fusebox core files be modified to reflect the relative path to each circuit? For example if I have directory structure like: home/parent/grandparent I could access it like so: home.parent.grandparent.fuseaction (This could be abbreviated to grandparent.fuseaction if no other circuits named grandparent exist, of course) This way I could have identically named circuits under different directory structures such as: model.user view.user controller.user In addition, fbx_circuits.cfm would become obsolete because the directory mapping would already be included in the dot notation. Am I way off base here, or is this something to be considered? Balazs -----Original Message----- From: Lee Borkman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2002 1:12 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: MVC Hi Balazs, There are many mvc flavours around, but in general, an XFA will always be a controller fuseaction. Views can directly call models, yes, but an xfa is a special beast that defines the next interaction between user and application, ie it is a controller function. can you have multiple controller circuits? yes, certainly, it would be common to have a controller circuit for each class of user. have a look at hal's mvc/fuseq tutorials on techspedition, and you'll see an example.. gotta run, screaming kids... leebb ----- Original Message ----- From: Balazs Wellisch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> True, but MVC with fusebox, as far as I know, is Hal's. Anyway, the point is I'd like to see a more extensive example of how the controller circuit is constructed. Hal's paper explains the concept very well, but I still would like to see a more complete "real world" example if there's one out there. I'd like to know if XFAs in the view circuits are allowed to call fuseactions in model circuits directly, or are they supposed to always go through the controller circuit. If so, wouldn't that quickly bloat the controller circuit for larger applications? Instead of having this giant controller could I break it up into several smaller controllers? I'm sure I'll have a bunch of other questions, but it's getting late... Balazs -----Original Message----- From: Neil Clark - =TMM= [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2002 11:06 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: MVC MVC as a concept is not 'Hals' :-) it's a standard OOP design tactic..... -----Original Message----- From: Balazs Wellisch [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 30 May 2002 06:52 To: Fusebox@Topica. Com Subject: MVC Does anyone know where I could get my hands on an example application using Hal's MVC design? Thanks, Balazs ==^================================================================ 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 ==^================================================================
