I could have sworn the other I saw a demo of Struts running on CF and for that matter I seem to recall Fusebox on J2EE as well. Anyway... on to the rest of your email.
Why do you want a framework from me that will work better than Fusebox for your needs? Wouldn't you be the best person to create such a framework. A better question is, why haven't you created a better framework for your needs? -Matt On Friday, July 18, 2003, at 04:46 PM, Sandy Clark wrote: > Again, I don't think anyone can say they will use Fusebox in a Java > World or > Struts in a CF5 world. There is no comparison. If you are talking > numbers > as a way to go by your own supposition, there are 10 times the number > of > Java Developers. You can't compare the frameworks like that. There > is no > commonality in terms of ability to use them in the areas for which > they are > not designed. > > So I don't think that comparing Struts to Fusebox is a reasonable > comparison. Its like saying there are more people in the world who > drive > cars rather than boats, cars sell better, therefore regardless of > whether > you are on land or water, you should be in a car. > > Cars are for land, boats are for water. > Struts is for Java, Fusebox is for CFML. > > Personally I don't care how many people use something. To me that > isn't a > valid argument. What I am concerned about is what will work for me > and the > people who work with me in developing web applications quickly and > cleanly. > > > I have yet to be introduced to a framework that will work in both CF5 > or > CFMX that will help me structure my code and not have to worry about > all the > housekeeping, other than Fusebox. I've looked at BlackBox, I've > looked at > SmartObjects. Neither of them come close. > > If you have a framework that will work better in ColdFusion, then > please > introduce it to me. I have always said that I will be more then happy > to > drop Fusebox if something better comes along. I've always said it's a > framework not a religion. > >>> There are a lot of reasons why one would use Struts over Fusebox and >>> vice versa, but if sheer numbers matter to people than Struts is the >>> way to go since it is used by a lot more people. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 4:24 PM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: Re: Cons to Fusebox > > > I don't see why comparing different kinds of framework is an issue if > you limit your comparison to specifics that are shared by both. As I > pointed out in my first email, there is no one framework that is best > for all applications, so what the framework is or what it does is > irrelevant to my point, which was in regards to sheer numbers. And > since both frameworks have a following it is perfectly acceptable to > compare that following. > > -Matt > > On Friday, July 18, 2003, at 03:07 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> Interesting that you are comparing a Java Framework to a ColdFusion >> framework. Don't you think that is comparing Apples to Oranges? >> >> Within the Java World, Struts is by far the most adapted Framework of >> its kind. Within the ColdFusion world (and I am not just referring to >> CFMX here). Fusebox is the most adapted Framework of its kind. >> >> So don't compare Fusebox with Struts, compare it to BlackBox and >> SmartObjects. Those are the items within the same realm, just as you >> would compare Struts to Jade rather than comparing Struts to Zope. >> >>> I saw this thread mentioned on Sean's blog and I was thinking about >>> rejoining this list before reading his blog, so here I am. I'm not >>> interested in trying to rehash much of the debate since I am late to >>> this thread, but I feel like it is important to make at least a >>> couple >>> of points. >>> >>> First, I largely agree with Dave's position in this debate, but I >>> don't >>> agree with him in regards to his application of common sense in lieu >>> of >>> a framework. I think frameworks are extremely valuable and can make >>> an >>> enormous difference in the success of web applications especially >>> where >>> more than 3 people on working on them. Of course, picking the wrong >>> framework for an application can lead to all sorts of problems, so >>> the >>> notion of one framework being the correct one in every case should be >>> abandoned. >>> >>> Second, I have seen numerous references by Fusebox people both in and >>> out of this thread in regards to how the sheer number of people using >>> Fusebox is an important point. I like to put that into perspective a >>> bit. According to Fusebox.org, there are 17756 using Fusebox. Not >>> sure >>> where that number comes from, but let's apply that to the number of >>> CF >>> developers, which is supposed to be about 300,000. That would mean >>> about 6% of CF developers are using Fusebox. Now then, let's assume >>> that 6% of Java developers are using Struts. Since there is supposed >>> to >>> be about 3,000,000 Java developers that would mean there would be >>> 180,000 Java developers using Struts. >>> >>> There are a lot of reasons why one would use Struts over Fusebox and >>> vice versa, but if sheer numbers matter to people than Struts is the >>> way to go since it is used by a lot more people. BTW, if you don't >>> buy >>> the above numbers; take a look at the Amazon.com sales rankings for >>> the >>> 10+ struts books vs. the Fusebox books. >>> >>> -Matt >>> >>> On Friday, July 18, 2003, at 12:27 PM, Erik Yowell wrote: >>> >>>>> >>>>> Trade offs. Everything is a trade off. Sometimes the quick, >>>>> unstructured 'hack' is the right solution... >>>>> >>>> >>>> This for me (being a small shop) is why I've extensively adopted a >>>> framework like Fusebox. Most of my projects are not going to become >>>> an >>>> Amazon.com anytime soon, while this doesn't mean I should write >>>> sloppy >>>> code - it does allow the flexibility of allowing a bit of a >>>> processing >>>> overhead in lieu of manageability and the ability to bring in >>>> external >>>> talent to easily assist me in changes (if needed) by providing a >>>> good >>>> set of standards and the Fusebox docs. I don't have to spend >>>> precious >>>> time educating another developer on the intricacies of a custom >>>> framework. >>>> >>>> Despite what organizations like Rational think (in the sense that >>>> there >>>> is no such thing as RAD development) - I mean, come on now, how many >>>> developers out there have had the "I needed it yesterday" >>>> conversation >>>> with a client? I find having the ability to quickly find and make >>>> changes to medium sized projects, forced structuring of code and >>>> application processes to be a boon. >>>> >>>> Erik Yowell >>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>> http://www.shortfusemedia.com >>>> >>>> >>>> >> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| 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
