This is an elusive problem for which I've already instituted a workaround, so

it's not terribly urgent, but quite vexing nevertheless...



I have a FB5.5 app (with an xml-less config), and there's a function in my

App.cfc called isProduction() that returns a boolean value.  I had been setting

an application.mode variable (to 'prod' or 'dev') based on the value returned by

this function, but recently discovered (!) that I could call isProduction() from

pretty much anywhere.  However, after recently deploying updates to a testing

environment, I found that the function would not execute in one of my Model

cfc's -- though worked fine in display templates.  I did/do not have this

problem on my local dev environment.



Any ideas why the Application.cfc's function would work in a display template

but not in an implicitly-loaded FB Model cfc?



Thanks!

I think it pertains to scoping/visibility of "variables.*" from within

CFCs... I came across that one as well (except I was creating the

method in fusebox.init.cfm). You can assign the method to the request

scope and you should be able to access your App.cfc method from your

model:



<cffunction name="foo">

...

</cffunction>

<cfset request.foo = foo />



My guess is this probably resembles your workaround :]



On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 5:15 PM,

the_one_true_dave_anderson<dave@...> wrote:

>

>

> This is an elusive problem for which I've already instituted a workaround,

> so it's not terribly urgent, but quite vexing nevertheless...

>

> I have a FB5.5 app (with an xml-less config), and there's a function in my

> App.cfc called isProduction() that returns a boolean value. I had been

> setting an application.mode variable (to 'prod' or 'dev') based on the value

> returned by this function, but recently discovered (!) that I could call

> isProduction() from pretty much anywhere. However, after recently deploying

> updates to a testing environment, I found that the function would not

> execute in one of my Model cfc's -- though worked fine in display templates.

> I did/do not have this problem on my local dev environment.

>

> Any ideas why the Application.cfc's function would work in a display

> template but not in an implicitly-loaded FB Model cfc?

>

> Thanks!

>

>

On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 2:15 PM,

the_one_true_dave_anderson<dave@...> wrote:

> I have a FB5.5 app (with an xml-less config), and there's a function in my

> App.cfc called isProduction() that returns a boolean value. I had been

> setting an application.mode variable (to 'prod' or 'dev') based on the value

> returned by this function, but recently discovered (!) that I could call

> isProduction() from pretty much anywhere. However, after recently deploying

> updates to a testing environment, I found that the function would not

> execute in one of my Model cfc's -- though worked fine in display templates.

> I did/do not have this problem on my local dev environment.



I'm surprised you can call Application.isProduction() from a model CFC

in your local dev environment.



Yes, the variables scope of Application.cfc is available in your

views. It's also available as myFusebox.variables() which you could

use in the controllers (or model circuit if you're using a Fusebox

circuit for the model rather than standalone CFCs).



That said, I really wouldn't recommend this sort of thing. Relying on

Application.cfc methods being available "everywhere" is not very well

structured, to say the least. Application.cfc is meant to handle the

lifecycle of the application: startup/shutdown for application /

session / request. It's not meant to be a 'kitchen sink' for utility

methods.



What I typically do is have some sort of configuration CFC that

encapsulates all the differences between dev / qa / prod / etc as much

as possible and then make that available to other components as needed

(storing it in myFusebox.getApplicationData() for use in views and

controllers and then initializing the model with a reference to that

config CFC as appropriate).

--

Sean A Corfield -- (904) 302-SEAN

Railo Technologies US -- http://getrailo.com/

An Architect's View -- http://corfield.org/



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

-- Margaret Atwood

--- In fusebox5@yahoogroups.com, Sean Corfield <seancorfield@...> wrote:

>

> On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 2:15 PM,

> I'm surprised you can call Application.isProduction() from a model CFC

> in your local dev environment.



You should be!  I was mistaken!  I thought it worked in my local dev env because

I hadn't encountered the error, but it was there.



>

> Yes, the variables scope of Application.cfc is available in your

> views. It's also available as myFusebox.variables() which you could

> use in the controllers (or model circuit if you're using a Fusebox

> circuit for the model rather than standalone CFCs).

>

> That said, I really wouldn't recommend this sort of thing. Relying on

> Application.cfc methods being available "everywhere" is not very well

> structured, to say the least. Application.cfc is meant to handle the

> lifecycle of the application: startup/shutdown for application /

> session / request. It's not meant to be a 'kitchen sink' for utility

> methods.



I absolutely agree.  I was just playing around, and surprised to see that I

could call an app method in a view (without even specifying the scope -- just

plain ol' "isProduction()" worked), and wondered why it didn't work in the

controller cfcs.  Makes perfect sense now that I know I was mistaken about it

working in my local dev env.



BTW - Fusebox5.5 is the best!  I've used FB since v2, and quit using it after v4

for a while.  With the excellent flexibility of 5.5 and the option to avoid xml

configs altogether, I'm very grateful for all the work you put into it.



Cheers,

Dave



>

> What I typically do is have some sort of configuration CFC that

> encapsulates all the differences between dev / qa / prod / etc as much

> as possible and then make that available to other components as needed

> (storing it in myFusebox.getApplicationData() for use in views and

> controllers and then initializing the model with a reference to that

> config CFC as appropriate).

> --

> Sean A Corfield -- (904) 302-SEAN

> Railo Technologies US -- http://getrailo.com/

> An Architect's View -- http://corfield.org/

>

> "If you're not annoying somebody, you're not really alive."

> -- Margaret Atwood

>

On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 7:00 AM,

the_one_true_dave_anderson<dave@...> wrote:

> You should be! I was mistaken! I thought it worked in my local dev env

> because I hadn't encountered the error, but it was there.



OK, you had me worried for a bit there! :)



> BTW - Fusebox5.5 is the best! I've used FB since v2, and quit using it after

> v4 for a while. With the excellent flexibility of 5.5 and the option to

> avoid xml configs altogether, I'm very grateful for all the work you put

> into it.



Thank you!



It's always good to hear when an open source project you've invested a

lot of time and energy into helps someone get their work done more

effectively!

--

Sean A Corfield -- (904) 302-SEAN

Railo Technologies US -- http://getrailo.com/

An Architect's View -- http://corfield.org/



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

-- Margaret Atwood

On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 7:10 PM, Eva<bluemoonbow@...> wrote:

> Is there any place where I can sign up for a class on fusebox....kind of

> walk through an application from start to finish?  I am reading the Fusebox:

> Developing Coldfusion Application  but it would be nice to discuss it as I

> go along.



I'd be interested to hear what people recommend on Fusebox training.



I've heard of some very bad experiences with TeraTech Fusebox courses

so this is a good discussion to have here!

--

Sean A Corfield -- (904) 302-SEAN

Railo Technologies US -- http://getrailo.com/

An Architect's View -- http://corfield.org/



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

-- Margaret Atwood

On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 9:31 AM, Eva<bluemoonbow@...> wrote:

>

> Aw but when you are looking for a job, the question always comes up did you

> take a class or how did you learn to use fusebox.  If you take a class then

> that assures them that you have learn the standards and are using the method

> as taught ...if you learned it on your own then you are using your own

> interpretation which may not be their interpretation.  Saying I learned

> something on my own never seems to get the same respect as having taken and

> passed a class on the topic.



That may be true (the opposite for me actually), but what Kevin said

was correct. Fusebox is easy to learn with the documentation on the

site and sample apps.



Also, as I've seen several Fusebox sites over the years, all of them

have different standards. I don't think I've ever seen ANY sites that

follow the docs to the letter. :)



> ________________________________

> From: fusebox5@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fusebox5@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf

> Of Kevin Pepperman

> Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2009 10:57 PM

> To: fusebox5@yahoogroups.com

> Subject: Re: [fusebox5] new to fusebox

>

> Fusebox is a simple, easy to use framework that works very good. Thats why

> it is so popular.

>

> The nuts and bolts are rather easy to understand. You shouldn't need a class

> to be able to use it.

> Maybe that is why you are getting no response here. Most people know a

> couple hours with whats available on the fusebox site, forums and groups

> should give you plenty of information to get started.

> Most general questions or beginner "how do i..?" questions have been gone

> over many times.

> Just some basic understanding of CFML, and if you use the XML flavor-- some

> understanding of the XML syntax is needed to begin.

> It is not a CMS or an 'out of box solution', so it supports almost any

> coding style (good or bad).

> If you download the few sample apps or the skeleton frameworks you will

> discover that it is really a simple process. Fusebox is very good at staying

> out of the way.

> There are conventions that are community standards.. But you do no need to

> use any of these conventions to use Fusebox.

>

> Download the core files and  the skeleton app.. place it in your site root.

> Thats it.

> No setup, nothing special to run it.

> I would suggest the books that are available if you want to get into the

> more advanced stuff.

>

http://www.protonarts.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=Books.showBookDetails&ISBN=097526\

477X

>

http://protonarts.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=Books.showBookDetails&ISBN=0975264761

>

> On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 8:36 PM, Eva <bluemoonbow@...> wrote:

>>

>>

>> So I take it from the silence that there isn't any place to learn

>> Fusebox.  Everyone for themselves kind of deal, not sure why it is so

>> popular then.

>> I like the idea but it would be nice to have some place to learn it....

>> Eva

>> ________________________________

>> From: fusebox5@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fusebox5@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf

>> Of Sean Corfield

>> Sent: Sunday, June 28, 2009 12:38 AM

>> To: fusebox5@yahoogroups.com

>> Subject: Re: [fusebox5] new to fusebox

>>

>> On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 7:10 PM, Eva<bluemoonbow@...> wrote:

>> > Is there any place where I can sign up for a class on fusebox....kind of

>> > walk through an application from start to finish?  I am reading the

>> > Fusebox:

>> > Developing Coldfusion Application  but it would be nice to discuss it as

>> > I

>> > go along.

>>

>> I'd be interested to hear what people recommend on Fusebox training.

>>

>> I've heard of some very bad experiences with TeraTech Fusebox courses

>> so this is a good discussion to have here!

>> --

>> Sean A Corfield -- (904) 302-SEAN

>> Railo Technologies US -- http://getrailo.com/

>> An Architect's View -- http://corfield.org/

>>

>> "If you're not annoying somebody, you're not really alive."

>> -- Margaret Atwood

>

>

>

> --

> -- if you've written a homegrown[*CFML] controller layer that rivals the

> sophistication and ease of use of the three major players (MG/MII/FB) - then

> share it or shut up. You code in a silo - that's great. Just stay in there

> and don't try to tell everyone how good it smells.

> --Dave Ross

>

>

>

Yes, exactly.   I feel awkward asking about things here cause everyone seems to be doing this for a while....and the answers kind of imply that you should have know that...but the thing is I figure that was the case but I wasn't sure.    I hate to assume things and then something doesn't work and the reason it doesn't work is because your assumptions was wrong...lol  That is why I was hoping there would be a class where you can go through everything and ask questions without feeling out of place.

Eva

Expanding on what Barney says, it is possible to "help yourself" as well

as waiting for answers from other, more informed users. I highly, highly

recommend Jeff Peters' books on Fusebox. They take the approach that you

don't just want to know how to use the framework, you also want to know

how the framework "works". It's the difference between an owner's manual

in the glove box of your car, versus the books with all the exploded

diagrams that the mechanics have. But somehow even with the vast amounts

of information contained in the books, it's imparted in a manner that

builds you up into it as a progression through the book.



Mike

www.fusebuilder.net





Barney Boisvert wrote:

>

>

> Don't hesitate to ask questions.  You're correct that a lot of

> questions on this list are about in-depth, nitty-gritty stuff, but

> don't let that deter you.  Every one of us started with zero

> knowledge, and I'd wager relatively few took formal instruction.  So

> everyone was in your shoes at some point, and the majority of us would

> be happy to assist with whatever sort of guidance you need about Fusebox.

>

> Like any technical community, there are certain best practices for

> asking questions.  See if Google can help.  Provide complete info

> (particularly for "why doesn't X work" type questions).  Take the time

> to think through what you're asking and phrase it clearly and

> concisely.  Etcetera.

>

> Follow those and you'll almost always get responses, but do give it at

> least a day.  Often answers will show up in a few minutes, but no one

> I know is paid to answer mailing list questions, so pretty much

> everything else is higher priority.  Which isn't to say it won't

> happen, just that it might not happen immediately.

>

> cheers,

> barneyb

>

> --

> Barney Boisvert

> bboisvert@... <mailto:bboisvert@...>

> http://www.barneyb.com/ <http://www.barneyb.com/>

>

> On Jul 4, 2009, at 8:35 PM, "Eva" <bluemoonbow@...

> <mailto:bluemoonbow@...>> wrote:

>

>> Yes, exactly.   I feel awkward asking about things here cause

>> everyone seems to be doing this for a while....and the answers kind

>> of imply that you should have know that...but the thing is I figure

>> that was the case but I wasn't sure.    I hate to assume things and

>> then something doesn't work and the reason it doesn't work is because

>> your assumptions was wrong...lol  That is why I was hoping there

>> would be a class where you can go through everything and ask

>> questions without feeling out of place.

>> Eva

>>

>

I had this same question as I was recently getting ready to develop my

first FB5 app.



If you have no budget (pretty common these days) there really isn't much

out there, and until you try to create an app yourself, you really can't

grasp it until you see pieces of it in action.



I downloaded as many "sample" apps as I could, avoiding CFC versions

since I'm pretty lost in the CFC world still.



Using Jeff Peters book, I followed it pretty much to the letter (too

much so, it turns out) and I was able to kludge my way through it.



I now have a full app written in FB5 and I now feel pretty comfortable

with it... the xml, non-CFC version, that is.



I think the biggest hurdle for me (after the FLiP part), was

understanding how the xml files and XFAs worked.



Once I got those, it was pretty much just trying things and seeing how

they worked.



Also, I tried building a small piece of my app first using FB5 and that

helped me kind of "see" what it was all about.



I also think the Fusebox Project Wiki

(http://wiki.fuseboxframework.org/display/fb/Home) is very helpful.



One problem I had was knowing where to post questions.  There's the

fusebox forums, the Yahoo Group, and various user group ListServes, and

I had varying degrees of success getting my questions answered,

depending on where I posted and who was "watching".



Hope this helps, at least to some degree.



Dan



Eva wrote:

>

>

> So I take it from the silence that there isn't any place to learn

> Fusebox.  Everyone for themselves kind of deal, not sure why it is so

> popular then.

> I like the idea but it would be nice to have some place to learn it....

> Eva

>

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

> *From:* fusebox5@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fusebox5@yahoogroups.com] *On

> Behalf Of *Sean Corfield

> *Sent:* Sunday, June 28, 2009 12:38 AM

> *To:* fusebox5@yahoogroups.com

> *Subject:* Re: [fusebox5] new to fusebox

>

> On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 7:10 PM, Eva<bluemoonbow@...

> <mailto:bluemoonbow%40earthlink.net>> wrote:

> > Is there any place where I can sign up for a class on fusebox....kind of

> > walk through an application from start to finish?  I am reading the

> Fusebox:

> > Developing Coldfusion Application  but it would be nice to discuss

> it as I

> > go along.

>

> I'd be interested to hear what people recommend on Fusebox training.

>

> I've heard of some very bad experiences with TeraTech Fusebox courses

> so this is a good discussion to have here!

> --

> Sean A Corfield -- (904) 302-SEAN

> Railo Technologies US -- http://getrailo.com/ <http://getrailo.com/>

> An Architect's View -- http://corfield.org/ <http://corfield.org/>

>

> "If you're not annoying somebody, you're not really alive."

> -- Margaret Atwood

>

>