[FX.php List] Another Request for FX.php (version 4.0) feedback

[Chris Hansen]

Dan,

It's really just a matter of what's easier for different people to 
remember.  Don't worry, the previous functions aren't going away, I'm 
just trying to streamline things for some users.

Thanks for the feedback!

--Chris Hansen
   creator of FX.php
   "The best way from FileMaker to the Web."
   www.iViking.org

On Jun 6, 2005, at 8:34 AM, DC wrote:

> Hello,
>
> Can someone please explain to me the benefits of using CONSTANTS as 
> parameters? I can only see the pitfalls.
>
> It seems to me that it just puts a whole layer onto what was a set of 
> simple functions. It also obscures the parameter type. It's also a 
> bunch of new stuff to unlearn.learn without any payoff.
>
> Isn't it a better overall architecture to have a few apropriately 
> named functions than to have a layer of CONSTANTS that need to be 
> passed as parameters?
>
> By "simplifying" you've actually added one more function! Meaning, I 
> still have to remember the CONSTANTS and now I have to remember the 
> generic function name and the proper set of constants and whether they 
> need to be passed, etc... etc...
>
> Please help me see the light. Why is this method of defining an API 
> being pursued with FX.php?
>
>> * You'll note that now there's no need to remember multiple action 
>> functions.  Each action constant should be logical to remember: 
>> FX_OPEN, FX_CLOSE, FX_DELETE, FX_DUPLICATE, FX_EDIT, etc.  No 
>> abbreviations.  Easy?
> _______________________________________________
> FX.php_List mailing list
> FX.php_List at mail.iviking.org
> http://www.iviking.org/mailman/listinfo/fx.php_list
>