Barney, Very useful and good points. Thank you.
Mike ----- Original Message ----- From: "Barney Boisvert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2003 3:06 PM Subject: RE: Cons to Fusebox > Here's some arguments against using FB4: > > - That horrible XML syntax for building an app. Have to learn another > language in order to use it. > - Can't put [as much] logic in the switch file (now XML), like in FB3 > - FB can make it harder to develop an app without proper planning > beforehand > > Then there are these three that are foolish, but widespread: > > - it's not supported (neither is Struts) > - it makes slow apps (a valid argument against FB3, not so with FB4) > - it's hard to use (there's an initial learning curve, but after that, > everything is easier and faster) > > There were a lot of good arguments against FB3, but most of those have been > eliminated with FB4 (including the CFFLUSH problem). It's not a solution > for everyone, but no framework is. Best bet: try several out, and then > pick. > > I think FB4 provides a very nice balance between ease of use and > functionality. If you take a look at Benoit Hediard's MVCF framework at > www.benorama.com, you'll see a totally different approach, with an empasis > on enterprise apps (huge scaling, integrated i18n, real n-tier > architecture), much of which is too much overhead for smaller projects. > However, FB4 is extensible enough (via plugins) to allow you to easily > integrate almost any feature you need, without hacking core (including a > CFC-based model layer). > > My personal opinion is that FB4 having the same name as FB3 is not a benefit > to FB4, as it has to deal with all the negative press FB3 garnered. It's a > totally different beast. > > Not quite what you were looking for, I'm sure, but hopefully useful none the > less. > > cheers, > barneyb > > --- > Barney Boisvert, Senior Development Engineer > AudienceCentral > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > voice : 360.756.8080 x12 > fax : 360.647.5351 > > www.audiencecentral.com > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Mike Brunt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2003 11:54 AM > > To: CF-Talk > > Subject: RE: Cons to Fusebox > > > > > > Mike we use Fusebox heavily and the only con I have enountered > > (this is FB30 and CF50) is layouts render CFFLUSH unusable. > > > > Otherwise we like FB all the way. > > > > Kind Regards - Mike Brunt > > Original Message ----------------------- > > Hey everyone, > > > > Some co-workers have asked me for some pros and cons to Fusebox 4 > > or Fusebox in general. > > I polled the Fusebox list awhile back and obviously got some > > biased results... anyone care to chime in.... I guess im really > > looking for some cons as I have a decent list of pros. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Mike > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| 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 Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in ColdFusion and related topics. http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
