My FB knowledge is a bit old (FB2 days), but what I remember is that FB basically provided a programming framework. For those of us that had a programming background (i.e. desktop applications), building a programming structure is/was a natural thing. On the otherhand, web developers without that programming background (i.e. they knew HTML, and are/were relatively new to scripting) would benifit from FB because it imposed structure on the applications they were creating.
I know FB has evolved since those days, so maybe this view is outdated. >From what I've seen of this thread, it might be worth looking at FB again. But now that I can build components, and basically implement OOP techniques, I don't know if FB would offer me anything that I can't already do through another method. My thoughts, not yours.... Shawn -----Original Message----- From: Clint Tredway [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2003 6:57 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Cons to Fusebox I recently helped on a project that used Fusebox. I tell you what.. Talk about doing more than what you need. I will never understand using Fusebox. It took more time to build the parts that I needed to get done using Fusebox than it would have had I just built it the way that I do it. I know it may work for some, but for me.. I don't like it. My 2 cents... Clint -----Original Message----- From: GL [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2003 7:45 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Cons to Fusebox Right Barney. I've architected dozens of FB3 sites without ever needing to use a recursive call to the fusebox. Earlier in the thread someone mentioned that FB3 has garnered a lot of bad press. Everyone in the FB community loves FB3! I've been to most of the conferences and have been on the HOF list for a few years. In my opinion the only bad press I've heard is from overly clever folks who try to make things as complicated as possible rather than just getting the job done. FB 3 gets the job done with tons of upside. FB4 sounds like it'll be great also, but shouldn't take anything away from FB3. Greg -----Original Message----- From: Barney Boisvert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2003 7:26 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Cons to Fusebox Wow. I'm impressed. >From what I've gathered, applications making heavy use of recursive calls to the fusebox are not the norm for FB3 applications, and the performance gain you mention is tied directly to that style of coding. If you don't make use of recursive calls, you'll see a performance increase with FB4 over FB3, but it won't be nearly that substantial. I'm not beating a dead horse, just don't want to let anyone get the idea that FB4 is orders of magnitude faster for all situations. It might be for some, but not all. 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: Brian Kotek [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2003 4:43 PM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: Cons to Fusebox > > > I should have been clearer, in that the application in question used > multiple CFMODULE calls to recursively call the Fusebox core and > populate several sections of content. Other than the change from FB3 > to FB4 (along with the elimination of the CFMODULEs), no other changes > were made to the application. The processing time for an average page > in this application dropped from 400 ms to 40 ms when using Fusebox 4 > in production mode (a setting in the fusebox.xml file). Obviously, > your mileage may vary, but I feel this is a pretty good example of the > increase in performance that FB4 can deliver. > > >Brian's comparison needs qualification. If a request takes > 400ms to render, > >but 350 of that was a slow query, then it'll only drop to around > 360ms with > >FB4. It's only the framework code that is enormously faster, not the > >application code. In my experiences, the framework overhead was > annoying, > >but fairly small (never more than 10-15%) of total execution > time. Assuming > >that tenfold decrease is valid (it's probably reasonable), you're > >only looking at shaving 10% off your total execution time. The point > is that FB3 > >isn't horribly slower, it's the application that takes most of > the time, not > >the framework. FB4 is has a lighter weight execution time, but > it's a small > >difference overall. > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| 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
