| It basically allows us to get around the limitations | imposed by the simple circuit->fuseaction->fuse | relationship. For example, if I have three fuses | that are used together in several fuseaction the | duplication drives me nuts. There's a strong | temptation to put them all behind another fuse, but | the practice of fuses including fuses is frowned | upon. With MVC I can put them all in a fuseaction | and call that fuseaction instead.
This gives me an idea that can be tied to your previous posts regarding "fuseaction files" like fa_blah.cfm, where if you call the fuseaction home.blah, the switch file simply includes the fa_blah file. Here's the thought: if you are already putting a whold fuseaction into a single file, you can simply include that fa_file in another fa_file, thus "executing" another fuseaction concurrently with the current request. It is not quite as clean as FuseQ, since you wouldn't be able to simply call the Fusebox core and have it do its thing inline, but you would cut down on the duplication... Now that I say it it doesn't sound as cool as it did at first, but it's an idea... David Huyck [EMAIL PROTECTED] ==^================================================================ 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 ==^================================================================
