Sean, please correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that you've never used Fusebox on any sizeable project (maybe not at all?). I'm not arguing whether you're right or wrong, but question the basis of the claim that Fusebox doesn't scale.
On the point that it doesn't leverage CFMX - I agree, but then how could it? It was designed a year prior to CFMX. Maybe it would be more prudent (though arguably less fun) to be more charitable and see what the FB community comes up with? Hal Helms Preorder "Discovering ColdFusion Components (CFCs)" at www.techspedition.com -----Original Message----- From: Sean A Corfield [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2002 5:43 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: Any Fusebox and CFMX issues? (Sheesh, I spend the morning in a two-hour vendor presentation and there's nearly 200 emails on CF-Talk!) On Wednesday, August 21, 2002, at 03:17 , Benoit Hediard wrote: > I am very curious to see how Fusebox is going to evolve with CFCs. <aol>Me too!</aol> > Because, right now, I am not convinced that Fusebox is very well > adapted > to > CFMX applications... I agree. FB3 - even as a set of concepts - fails to leverage any of the power of CFMX and, because of the way FB3 requires you to structure your CF app, makes it hard to do so. > It has quickly become a very mature and proven framework for building > high-end CF applications. I disagree. FB does not scale. Even some of the FB advocates admit that. There is a natural ceiling of project size and complexity beyond which FB and FLiP (the FB lifecycle) just can't be realistically applied. > Now, with MX, ColdFusion has entered into the J2EE universe and native > component-based architectures. Well, no, not by the traditional definition of "component-based architectures". > So from now on, I think it would be more logical to use standard J2EE > design > patterns and similar coding syntax As I've said many times, the "standard J2EE design patterns" (see Sun's web site) are *not* all suitable for CFMX and it is short-sighted to attempt to blindly apply them. Note: I'm an advocate of "Design Patterns" in general - and the 'Gang Of Four' book is a good starting point - and *general* design patterns can (and should) be applied to CFMX. The J2EE patterns are too J2EE-specific to apply to CFMX (and, indeed, they are mainly to workaround problems with the J2EE architecture in the first place!). > Fusebox and its "circuit" philosophy is not a J2EE design pattern, MVC > is the "de facto" J2EE design pattern. No, MVC is a technology-independent design pattern. In fact, it's a set of general design patterns - more of a paradigm. Implementing MVC in J2EE is pretty much what led to Sun's J2EE patterns in the first place. > Thanks to CFCs, the new Taglib mecanism (<cfimport>) and the improved > UDF lib, you can pretty easily apply MVC with CFMX : Yes, CFMX makes it much easier to apply MVC. > - CF Pages + Taglib for the View layer (or Flash MX), Yes, that seems to be the most common way to implement the View. > - CF scripts for the Controller layer, Or CFCs (my preference). > - CFCs for the Model layer. Yes, CFCs are very good for the Model layer. > In my opinion, it is more intuitive, simple and elegant than the > "circuit-based" design pattern of Fusebox. I agree. > Some people have tried to add MVC to Fusebox. Some people have tried to add OO constructs to Functional Languages. And failed because it's not a good match. I don't believe FB does a good job of addressing the Model portion of applications (which is why it doesn't scale to complex projects, in my opinion). I've blogged your MVCF page and will review and comment on it in more detail in due course. I think it's a really good starting point. "If you're not annoying somebody, you're not really alive." -- Margaret Atwood ______________________________________________________________________ Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
