On Thursday, August 29, 2002, at 07:07 , Jeff D. Chastain wrote: > I did not study it for details, but what I read of the coding standards > link > you mentioned sounds like primarily just good programming practices - i.e. > naming conventions etc.
Correct, it is a list of recommended best practices. > FuseBox has some of this, but FuseBox is really > more of a design architecture. It's a framework. > There was a mention on the below mentioned > site that separating content from layout is a good idea Indeed it is. > FuseBox actually implements this. No, Fusebox recommends you do it and provides a well-defined way for you to do it. Fusebox itself does *not* implement this for you - you have to write your code in a very specific manner in order to do this. Fusebox again provides a *convention* for it - HTML generation goes in dsp_xxx.cfm files or layout files (which, confusingly, are two separate things in Fusebox), database queries go in qry_xxx.cfm files, actions (logic) go in act_xxx.cfm files. It's somewhat contrived and, IMO, somewhat unnatural. All it's doing is forcing you to partition your code, it isn't creating a tiered architecture like MVC for example. > There was also a suggested documentation format mentioned > that should be provided for each template. FuseBox is a 'generation' > ahead > of this by utilizing a documentation standard called fusedocs that are > actually written in XML to allow for later processing. Again, it is a very stylized approach, requiring users to learn a specific way of documenting code (which is not necessarily a bad thing) and it still doesn't help ensure that the documentation actually matches the code. I won't argue with the benefit of being able to automatically generate documentation from code - which Fusebox effectively lets you do - but this is an idea that's been around since the 60's so it's nothing new. ColdFusion MX supports this directly by generating Javadoc-style output from the code itself which means that the documentation can *never* get out of sync with the code, unlike Fusedocs. > To sum up, the below link provides a lot of good information in terms of > 'best practices'. FuseBox itself is a program architecture that takes > those > 'best practices', improves on them, and puts them into work. Fusebox is a framework, not an architecture, and whether it "improves" on various best practices is a point of much contention. > http://www.corfield.org/coldfusion/codingStandards.htm See also: http://www.corfield.org/coldfusion.phtml?cfsection=coldfusion/fusebox "If you're not annoying somebody, you're not really alive." -- Margaret Atwood ______________________________________________________________________ This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for dependable ColdFusion Hosting. 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
