Dave Watts wrote: >I don't like controller structures, or "hub-and-spoke" frameworks, or >whatever you want to call them. I think they add needless complexity to most >CF applications. I like being able to see a URL and know which file to edit, >without having to read some other file.
Wow, if you can look at the URL and "tell what file to edit", you must have a gigantic amount of data-layer logic stuffed into your display file for it all to be in one place. I prefer the emphasis that Fusebox places on separating logic from presentation. >I don't like unnecessary use of variables at runtime. When you have >something like "<form action="#foo#">", how often does #foo# change that you >need to store it in a variable? The vast majority of HTML forms are only >going to post data to one place. Fusebox does not require you to use a variable for this, it's only a suggestion. And one that my experience has found to be a very useful one. >I don't like unnecessary abstraction in general. You may argue that the >abstraction provided by Fusebox is a better alternative than a lack of >abstraction, but I haven't found that to be the case personally. If you prefer to build rigid and brittle code, I agree that abstraction is a very bad idea. >I don't like (what I perceive to be) the underlying concept that web >applications are like houses, built brick-by-brick, and that each of these >"bricks" or modules needs to be as loosely coupled as possible to all the >others. Not all code can be reused, not all modules are better off being as >loosely coupled as possible, and in any case, such loose coupling is often >impossible in fact since the data schema won't allow it. Maybe you should email the the creators of Java, or the folks who wrote "The Pragmatic Programmer", any of the gang of four books, or virtually any other widely respected software engineering book, because they would strongly disagree that decoupling is a bad thing. Furthermore, I have not had any problems creating highly encapsulated modules with Fusebox, regardless of data schema. >I don't like the way that Fusebox adherents tend to misuse common terms, >like "methodology", but that's not really a complaint against Fusebox. I do >suspect that there's something to the correlation between Fusebox and its >users, but I don't know what that would be. Methodology: a body of methods , rules, and postulates employed by a discipline : a particular procedure or set of procedures. This definition fits Fusebox perfectly. >> And I can promise you that there are PLENTY of people that >> don't use Fusebox and are quite ready to attack at any time. >> I haven't seen much of that in this discussion, which is very >> refreshing. > >Yes, the hordes of Fusebox attackers are unbearable, aren't they? It must be >terrible, what with everyone constantly telling you to stop using it. I must admit that sometimes dealing with the naysayers can be quite exhausting. It's very easy to find flaws in other people's ideas. What is virtually always the case is that someone repeatedly attacks the idea without ever providing any solution that is superior (don't read too much into this if you don't want to). I have never said that Fusebox will solve all development problems. Why must you make such sweeping generalities like that? I didn't come here to convince anyone of anything, but to answer questions and then, later, to defend Fusebox from those that say it is "bad" but offer no better solution themselves. When compared to the alternatives (no structure at all, someone's personal best guess at something, or some superior approach that conspicuously manages to never actually be revealed) it is the best thing I've found so far. And about 17,000 other people agree. So to others out there reading these messages, I invite you to take a look at Fusebox beyond the lens of my opinion, Dave's, or anyone elses. It's free. It's wide open, sitting there and waiting for you to give it consideration, which is something very few other ColdFusion methodologies can say. Is it perfect? No. Does it solve everyone's entire set of development challenges? No. But does it openly reveal itself to anyone who wants to consider it? Yes. Is it a useful approach? Thousands of people believe it is. Does it try to incorporate the best-practice advice of many highly respected developers and software engineers, such as abstraction, encapsulation, decoupling, and orthogonality? It certainly does. Is it the approach you should take to building a web application? I strongly believe it is worthy of serious consideration, but it remains up to the individual to decide for themselves. I'll leave it at that. Regards, Brian ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| 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
