I undertook a project which was partially completed before I became involed. The project up to that point had been done in a "modified" form of FB2 on CF5. I ran into large number of problems simply because the code was not a full FB implementation. Had it been, a number of things would have been easier. However, it was not in the best interests of the project to start from scratch and rewrite the code in full FB implementation, or some other archeticture. So, I had to work with what was there, and follow the FB'ness of the application as closely as possible.
Looking back on the project, I think it was a good example of where FB was not well suited. This was an very complex application (basically rewriting a desktop app to the web, but in such a way that there was no difference between the two - either in functionality or interface). Some of the pages did so many different things given so many different conditions - the FB approach hindered the process I think. I'm sure some would argue that FB is very good at this type of application (sorry I can't give more details - NDA), but in my eyes, even had FB2 been implemented correctly, it would have made debugging and maintenance of the application extremely difficult. Now that CFMX can support components and most of the object oriented approach to programming, I'm finding this to be a much better, and more robust solution. If I can figure out how to simulate events serverside (but within the CFC framework), I wouldn't see a need for any other language on the web. On the otherhand, I know FB3 and FB4 have improved significantly, and may be as robust as applying OOP concepts. Shawn -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 5:25 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: Cons to Fusebox >While I still don't like it, I do have a better understanding of why others >might like it, and perhaps would even agree that it may help some people >with their development process. Without this thread, I probably wouldn't >have that understanding. I find myself very much agreeing with you, Dave, in that I think this thread has been very educational. I do wish people would not react so personally when someone says they dislike a particular methodology or framework. I personally don't think one framework can solve all problems in web development, and that each application should be viewed on its own merits and the first question that should be asked is: What's the best tool for this job? For example: Let's say you've inherited a ColdFusion application that's not in Fusebox, and you've got to work on it/enhance it in some way within a short time period. Is it better to sit and recode that app to be a Fusebox app, or is it better to take the app as is and recode where needed? I've never coded in Fusebox (or in ColdFusion, for that matter, though I can edit articles on both), but I would imagine that there are times when you'd want to use Fusebox and there are times when time constraints/other issues might cause you to decide to use some other methodology/framework or your own coding guidelines for a more generic ColdFusion app. Thoughts from people who are actually in the trenches here? Judith ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| 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
