Not one to start gossip, but I was under the influence that Hal Helms left the fusebox group. Is this true? If so why did he leave, if not, why is this rumor floating around?
Adam Wayne Lehman Web Systems Developer Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health Distance Education Division -----Original Message----- From: Mike Brunt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Sunday, January 12, 2003 12:13 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Design Pattern Question Yes this is a good methodology to consider as we all move out of procedural methodologies to more 'OO' based concepts. Yet in my opinion there is a further dimension that Fusebox achieves, or has done for us, that I have not yet seen expounded in CFMX tutorials etc. Using Fusebox in conjunction with FLIP we have a complete application design and development environment from concept-discussion through coding-ongoing maintenance. In addition by using Fusebox we have found it easy to bring in developers who had never coded on CF before but who had a good grasp of HTML, JavaScript and/or ASP-JSP. Further by abstracting the actual Fuseaction values till run-time Fusebox truly affords the capability at another layer of separation, that of separating design from development; when combined with the very descriptive capabilities afforded by the use of Fusedocs. Finally, the logicality of using Circuits as a mapping/pathing mechanism addresses to physical layout questions of developing a web application. There is one last very important point here, there have been many previous methodologies/frameworks applied to ColdFusion development. What is different in Fusebox is it has become the most widely used of all of them and that is a very considerable factor for those of us using teams of developers that can change, grow, shrink etc. I recommend you take a look at Hal Helms work http://www.halhelms.com/webresources/fuseboxmxpreso/page1.htm as CFMX and Fusebox are melded to form the next iteration of Fusebox. Kind Regards - Mike Brunt Webapper Services LLC Web Site http://www.webapper.com Blog http://www.webapper.net Webapper <Web Application Specialists> -----Original Message----- From: Peter Bagnato [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Saturday, January 11, 2003 6:38 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Design Pattern Question I think that this is a very healthy design methodology for CF. Ben Forta has been harping for ages about the importance of separating the display, application, and data layers from the CF applications. The methodology outlined in that page presents this to the CF environment. It actually follows many of the well known and widely used J2EE methodologies out there. That was something that always bugged me about FuseBox and other methodologies presented for CF. Those are just my thoughts: Peter Bagnato -----Original Message----- From: Cutter (CF_Talk) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Saturday, January 11, 2003 11:59 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: Design Pattern Question Has anyone here taken a detailed look at the CFMX (semi) OOP design pattern put forth at http://www.benorama.com? Is anyone here using it? Formed some opinions? Have anything to add (or subtract)? Know who put this together in the first place? As one of my former commanders used to ask "Questions? Comments? War Stories?" Cutter ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq 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 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
