Performance in Fusebox 4 is almost 10 TIMES better than Fusebox 3. In other words, a page that took 400 milliseconds to render in Fusebox 3 takes about 40 milliseconds to render in production mode with Fusebox 4.
>In addition to cfflush being unuseable within FB layouts, I'll also >mention that FB3 is awfully heavy to be running it as a custom tag. >I've done it, and in some circumstances it's doable, but for instance, >I had an application which was developed in FB3 with a separate >circuit for a roles-based security model. We wanted to use the circuit >as a custom tag within other circuits in order to occlude various >features which were protected by the security model. Calling the >circuit as a custom tag turned out to be far too costly to use that >approach. Granted that this is an "advanced" feature of FuseBox, but >it's also a potential hazard if you get a developer who comes in and >sets something up that way and then you end up wondering why a whole >bunch of pages are horrendously slow. > >I've used fusebox in the past and I can in the future if a client >needs or wants. For my own development I don't prefer it. No offense >to Hal and company, personally I find it slow (both development and >page loads) and inflexible -- at least, that was my impression of FB3. >One FB advocate friend of mine (who shall remain nameless) says it's >because I'm too much of a "power user" (his view being that the big >advantage of FB is standardization for the average developer). > >The best example I can give of why I found the framework slow and >inflexible is this: my Tapestry CMS includes an add/remove components >wizard which is much like the Windows add/remove programs wizard. It's >wicked fast and allows add-on components to be installed or removed >through a browser interface without modifying or overwriting any of >the existing application code, without entering any file path >information, and without so much as a single line of programming. It >also uses cfflush to display installation progress. As a whole this >couldn't have been done in FB3 without so significantly modifying the >framework that I would have ended up doing more work than I did >starting from scratch. > >I haven't looked at mach-ii yet. > >hth > >Isaac > >Original Message ----------------------- >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 This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for dependable ColdFusion Hosting. http://www.cfhosting.com Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
