Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Fusebox 5 and cf mappings

Expand Messages
  • nearpersonal
    I ve been researching over on the fusebox.org forums, and it appears that fb4.1 will not allow you to specify a mapping as a circuit path (in fusebox.xml) I
    Message 1 of 10 , Sep 3, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      I've been researching over on the fusebox.org forums, and it appears
      that fb4.1 will not allow you to specify a mapping as a circuit path
      (in fusebox.xml) I was wondering if this behavior was changed in
      fusebox5? or is it still not possible to use a mapping for a circuit
      path.

      Thanks,
      Andrew
    • Sean Corfield
      ... Correct. Fusebox 5 is compatible with Fusebox 4.1 in that respect. I thought I d entered a ticket for this but I don t see it so I entered a new ticket:
      Message 2 of 10 , Sep 4, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        On Sep 3, 2006, at 2:49 PM, nearpersonal wrote:
        > I've been researching over on the fusebox.org forums, and it appears
        > that fb4.1 will not allow you to specify a mapping as a circuit path
        > (in fusebox.xml) I was wondering if this behavior was changed in
        > fusebox5? or is it still not possible to use a mapping for a circuit
        > path.

        Correct. Fusebox 5 is compatible with Fusebox 4.1 in that respect.

        I thought I'd entered a ticket for this but I don't see it so I
        entered a new ticket:

        http://trac.fuseboxframework.org/fusebox/ticket/156

        Sean A Corfield -- (904) 302-SEAN
        An Architect's View -- http://corfield.org/

        "If you're not annoying somebody, you're not really alive."
        -- Margaret Atwood
      • Jason Daiger
        Sean, I entered a ticket for the mapping a while back but it s always good to be thorough. :) -Jason _____ From: fusebox5@yahoogroups.com
        Message 3 of 10 , Sep 4, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          Sean,
          I entered a ticket for the mapping a while back but it's always good to be thorough. :)
           
          -Jason


          From: fusebox5@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fusebox5@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Sean Corfield
          Sent: Monday, September 04, 2006 2:33 PM
          To: fusebox5@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: Re: [fusebox5] Fusebox 5 and cf mappings

          On Sep 3, 2006, at 2:49 PM, nearpersonal wrote:
          > I've been researching over on the fusebox.org forums, and it appears
          > that fb4.1 will not allow you to specify a mapping as a circuit path
          > (in fusebox.xml) I was wondering if this behavior was changed in
          > fusebox5? or is it still not possible to use a mapping for a circuit
          > path.

          Correct. Fusebox 5 is compatible with Fusebox 4.1 in that respect.

          I thought I'd entered a ticket for this but I don't see it so I
          entered a new ticket:

          http://trac. fuseboxframework .org/fusebox/ ticket/156

          Sean A Corfield -- (904) 302-SEAN
          An Architect's View -- http://corfield. org/

          "If you're not annoying somebody, you're not really alive."
          -- Margaret Atwood

        • Sean Corfield
          ... I was convinced someone had but I didn t see the ticket... #139. I ve closed #156 as a duplicate of that. Sean A Corfield -- (904) 302-SEAN An Architect s
          Message 4 of 10 , Sep 4, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            On Sep 4, 2006, at 11:46 AM, Jason Daiger wrote:
            I entered a ticket for the mapping a while back but it's always good to be thorough. :)

            I was convinced someone had but I didn't see the ticket... #139. I've closed #156 as a duplicate of that.

            Sean A Corfield -- (904) 302-SEAN
            An Architect's View -- http://corfield.org/

            "If you're not annoying somebody, you're not really alive."
            -- Margaret Atwood



          • nearpersonal
            Great! I realize fixes like this may be way down the road, so does anyone have any suggestions on solutions for now? I ve been playing with some possible
            Message 5 of 10 , Sep 4, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              Great! I realize fixes like this may be way down the road, so does
              anyone have any suggestions on solutions for now? I've been playing
              with some possible solutions, however I'm not sure how best to attack
              this problem.
            • Sean Corfield
              ... Can you explain why you want mappings for circuit paths rather than using relative paths? (The workaround is relative paths) Sean A Corfield -- (904)
              Message 6 of 10 , Sep 6, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                On Sep 4, 2006, at 5:30 PM, nearpersonal wrote:
                > Great! I realize fixes like this may be way down the road, so does
                > anyone have any suggestions on solutions for now? I've been playing
                > with some possible solutions, however I'm not sure how best to attack
                > this problem.

                Can you explain why you want mappings for circuit paths rather than
                using relative paths? (The workaround is relative paths)

                Sean A Corfield -- (904) 302-SEAN
                An Architect's View -- http://corfield.org/

                "If you're not annoying somebody, you're not really alive."
                -- Margaret Atwood
              • Jason Daiger
                Sean, I ll jump in on this question because it speaks directly to a need I have. I have an application core that runs multiple other applications. The other
                Message 7 of 10 , Sep 7, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  Sean,
                  I'll jump in on this question because it speaks directly to a need I have.  I have an application core that runs multiple other applications. The other applications are generally just skeletons w/ a custom layout and customizations to labels, instructional text, etc.  The general structure is something along these lines: (note all below directories start in c:\inetput\wwwroot)
                   
                  com\
                      \webapplication\ver10
                          \ver10
                              \controller
                              \model
                              \view
                   
                  projects\
                      projectA_2006\
                          www\ (fusebox.xml and the other '1st level' files go here
                      projectB_2006\
                          www\ (fusebox.xml and the other '1st level' files go here
                      projectA_2007\
                          www\ (fusebox.xml and the other '1st level' files go here
                      projectB_2007\
                          www\ (fusebox.xml and the other '1st level' files go here
                  Both projectA & projectB's fusebox.xml file currently use a relative path to the main controller.  This approach would work fine if your development, test and production environment (i.e. directory structure) are identical.  However, the one environment that changes for us is the production environment.  More specifically when we need move one of our apps into a subdirectory postion. 
                  E.g. www.projectA.com & www.projectA.com\2006.  In this case the projectA_2007 directory is the main app and we 'archive' the 2006 project into subdirectory position.  This is where the use of relative paths hurts since we need to modify the fusebox.xml in the 2006 app to handle its new position.  And thus where a mapped circuit would be very useful.
                   
                  Hope this helps explain the need a bit.  If not, let me know and I'll try to explain further or in a different way.
                   
                  -Jason


                  From: fusebox5@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fusebox5@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Sean Corfield
                  Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 1:40 PM
                  To: fusebox5@yahoogroups.com
                  Subject: *****SPAM***** Re: [fusebox5] Re: Fusebox 5 and cf mappings

                  On Sep 4, 2006, at 5:30 PM, nearpersonal wrote:
                  > Great! I realize fixes like this may be way down the road, so does
                  > anyone have any suggestions on solutions for now? I've been playing
                  > with some possible solutions, however I'm not sure how best to attack
                  > this problem.

                  Can you explain why you want mappings for circuit paths rather than
                  using relative paths? (The workaround is relative paths)

                  Sean A Corfield -- (904) 302-SEAN
                  An Architect's View -- http://corfield. org/

                  "If you're not annoying somebody, you're not really alive."
                  -- Margaret Atwood

                • Barney Boisvert
                  Have you considered automating your deployment? Doing that would let you easily run a hook for manipulating the fusebox.xml programattically. That way the
                  Message 8 of 10 , Sep 7, 2006
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Have you considered automating your deployment? Doing that would let
                    you easily run a hook for manipulating the fusebox.xml
                    programattically. That way the mods are the same every time, and
                    they're handled automatically so you don't have to think about it.
                    You can also clear out you parsed dir this way, and maybe even
                    automatically regenerate everything after the deployment.

                    cheers,
                    barney

                    On 9/7/06, Jason Daiger <jason@...> wrote:
                    >
                    >
                    > Sean,
                    > I'll jump in on this question because it speaks directly to a need I have. I have an application core that runs multiple other applications. The other applications are generally just skeletons w/ a custom layout and customizations to labels, instructional text, etc. The general structure is something along these lines: (note all below directories start in c:\inetput\wwwroot)
                    >
                    > com\
                    > \webapplication\ver10
                    > \ver10
                    > \controller
                    > \model
                    > \view
                    >
                    > projects\
                    > projectA_2006\
                    > www\ (fusebox.xml and the other '1st level' files go here
                    > projectB_2006\
                    > www\ (fusebox.xml and the other '1st level' files go here
                    >
                    > projectA_2007\
                    > www\ (fusebox.xml and the other '1st level' files go here
                    > projectB_2007\
                    > www\ (fusebox.xml and the other '1st level' files go here
                    > Both projectA & projectB's fusebox.xml file currently use a relative path to the main controller. This approach would work fine if your development, test and production environment (i.e. directory structure) are identical. However, the one environment that changes for us is the production environment. More specifically when we need move one of our apps into a subdirectory postion.
                    > E.g. www.projectA.com & www.projectA.com\2006. In this case the projectA_2007 directory is the main app and we 'archive' the 2006 project into subdirectory position. This is where the use of relative paths hurts since we need to modify the fusebox.xml in the 2006 app to handle its new position. And thus where a mapped circuit would be very useful.
                    >
                    > Hope this helps explain the need a bit. If not, let me know and I'll try to explain further or in a different way.
                    >
                    > -Jason
                    >
                    >
                    > ________________________________
                    From: fusebox5@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fusebox5@yahoogroups.com] On
                    Behalf Of Sean Corfield
                    > Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 1:40 PM
                    > To: fusebox5@yahoogroups.com
                    > Subject: *****SPAM***** Re: [fusebox5] Re: Fusebox 5 and cf mappings
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > On Sep 4, 2006, at 5:30 PM, nearpersonal wrote:
                    > > Great! I realize fixes like this may be way down the road, so does
                    > > anyone have any suggestions on solutions for now? I've been playing
                    > > with some possible solutions, however I'm not sure how best to attack
                    > > this problem.
                    >
                    > Can you explain why you want mappings for circuit paths rather than
                    > using relative paths? (The workaround is relative paths)
                    >
                    > Sean A Corfield -- (904) 302-SEAN
                    > An Architect's View -- http://corfield.org/
                    >
                    > "If you're not annoying somebody, you're not really alive."
                    > -- Margaret Atwood
                    >
                    >



                    --
                    Barney Boisvert
                    bboisvert@...
                    360.319.6145
                    http://www.barneyb.com/

                    Got Gmail? I have 100 invites.
                  • nearpersonal
                    ... Its actually an entire application that uses the mapping. So I have where c: domains application_com is mapped to core
                    Message 9 of 10 , Sep 7, 2006
                    • 0 Attachment
                      > Can you explain why you want mappings for circuit paths rather than
                      > using relative paths? (The workaround is relative paths)

                      Its actually an entire application that uses the mapping. So I have
                      where c:\domains\application_com\ is mapped to \core\
                      c:\domains\application_com\model\
                      c:\domains\application_com\view\
                      c:\domains\application_com\controller\circuit1\circuit.xml
                      c:\domains\application_com\controller\circuit2\circuit.xml
                      c:\domains\application_com\controller\circuit3\circuit.xml

                      then I have multiple applications that all use these circuits (i.e.):

                      c:\domains\clientapp_com\index.cfm
                      c:\domains\clientapp_com\Application.cfm
                      c:\domains\clientapp_com\fusebox.init.cfm [to customize this app]
                      c:\domains\clientapp_com\fusebox.xml
                      c:\domains\clientapp_com\ColdSpring.xml

                      The model (cfc's) already use the mapping, so I was thinking it would
                      be best just to let the circuits use the mapping as well, rather than
                      a relative path (../../application_com/controller/circuit#/). I just
                      wanted to give this a try, so if you have any other solutions or any
                      pros/cons let me know :-)

                      Thans for you time,
                      Andrew
                    • Sean Corfield
                      To Jason and Andrew - good explanations... yes, I can see the benefits and I agree it is worth adding.
                      Message 10 of 10 , Sep 7, 2006
                      • 0 Attachment
                        To Jason and Andrew - good explanations... yes, I can see the
                        benefits and I agree it is worth adding.

                        >> Can you explain why you want mappings for circuit paths rather than
                        >> using relative paths? (The workaround is relative paths)
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.