I hope I did not give the impression that I dislike fusebox - because I like fusebox. I am by default a Java programmer, and fusebox added a tasty OO flavor to CF. It does appear the MX will now natively do most of what fusebox set out to do - which is the main reason for our switch.
In conclusion, Fusebox = good Java 64k method limit = bad (JSP and Cocoon suffer from this as well) :) Rob -----Original Message----- From: Mike Brunt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 4:53 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: Fusebox and CFMX was RE: Switching to CFMX Sean, thanks for all your informative and very helpful posts. I started using CF in 1996 and Fusebox opened up all sorts of great things to pre CFMX ColdFusion. I know there are many luminaries who dislike Fusebox no doubt for good reason within their own well-structured company's/worlds, people for whom I have the utmost respect. For our operation Fusebox made ColdFusion very understandable fairly quickly for those whom had not used CF previously. It also added a level of legitimacy to ColdFusion in many hallowed halls (not that CF needed legitimacy but perception is powerful). Like you I look forward to Fuseboxes next iteration with great anticipation, I know the great minds behind Fusebox are carving out even greater things thanks to CFMX. Things just keep getting more exciting and bountiful. Mike Brunt - CTO Webapper Services LLC http://www.webapper.com Downey CA Office 562.243.6255 "Making the NET Work" -----Original Message----- From: Sean A Corfield [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 4:07 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: Switching to CFMX I've been trying to resist responding to this thread but... On Monday, Sep 30, 2002, at 14:44 US/Pacific, Rob Rohan wrote: > <cfswitch switch="attributes.fuseaction"> > <cfcase value="listall,showone,dosomething,doanotherthing" > delimiters=","> > <cfinclude template="index0.cfm"> > </cfcase> > <cfcase value="update,delete,dothis,dothat" delimiters=","> > <cfinclude template="index1.cfm"> > </cfcase> > ... > </cfswitch> Let me say, first of all, that I'm glad you've found a workaround. Secondly, this is exactly the sort of issue that makes me very nervous of Fusebox. It tries hard to hide complexity from programmers but this shows just how much code it's really hiding and just how much machinery lurks behind the framework. Of course, this isn't really FB's fault: old-style CF just doesn't provide the expressive machinery to support the sort of near-OO encapsulation that FB attempts. I think that FB4 has the potential to be much cleaner and idiomatic, based on the OO features that MX introduced to CF. I'm looking forward to seeing it. > It adds a whole layer of abstraction, but seems to work. Again this > only > happen when doing really large files and the (evil) errors MX gives > are the > following This is good to know for other Fuseboxers. Thanx for following up with a workaround without 'bashing' CF! An Architect's View -- http://www.corfield.org/blog/ Macromedia DevCon 2002, October 27-30, Orlando, Florida Architecting a New Internet Experience Register today at http://www.macromedia.com/go/devcon2002 ______________________________________________________________________ Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com 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
