concept (nested or otherwise). It did introduce the concept of content
variable which lets you buffer your display into variables and then display
them into a layout file.
There is a lot more flexibility to layouts in Fusebox 4. Works great with
things such as web standards as well.
Sandy Clark
http:/www.shayna.com - For Fusebox toolsets for HS and DWMX, and lots of
example code for FB4
_____
From: S. Isaac Dealey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2003 1:19 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: fusebox
Well it's mostly a question of time I think. My understanding is that
the majority of developers / coders (whatever we want to be called)
don't really use frameworks, we just pound the code into the shape we
want it like the way a kid goes after play-doh. :)
Ultimately becoming intimate with the pros and cons of any given
method or idea takes a fair amount of time, and frameworks typically
involve a good number of different methods and ideas and how they work
together, so becoming intimate with the pros and cons of a framework
will take a fair amount of time. I was talking about this with Sean
Corfield just the other day actually and he was saying how all
frameworks have a noticeable learning curve and don't seem to offer
much benefit until you've got a fair amount of that learning under
your belt.
I think a lot of us who write code for a living either feel as though
we're under too much pressure to find or make the time to learn a
framework(s), and or value our recreational time too much to allow
learning frameworks to take up the hours we're not being paid.
Obviously I'm not speaking to or about everyone -- or anyone in
particular for that matter. But it seems like this has been the case
with a lot of people I've met.
So frameworks I _think_ tend to end up being learned largely by the
sort of osmosis and approximation that occurs when a manager or lead
developer finds one he likes and simply makes a business decision to
use it. Everyone else in the office learns it more or less out of
necessity.
So I think building a small app using a framework is significantly
better than only doing the "pros and cons" research of asking other
people their opinions. And especially if you're going to try out
several frameworks, you're looking at a rather significant investment
of time even for that.
I think you are right tho -- experience is a real must.
I myself was much more impressed with Fusebox 3 when I got it "out of
the box" so to speak, than I was after I'd worked with it for a while.
My disenchantment doesn't make it a bad framework / methodology, it's
just not how I prefer to work. And my own experience with nested
layouts in FB3 lead to my implementation of a different nested layout
model in the onTap framework.
...
ahh, a lengthy post! :) It feels good to do that again. :)
> I don't think it's that easy to get a feel for the
> framework. If the
> projects too small, you might not run into the limitations
> of the
> framework until the 3rd or 4th app. I remember when I
> first started
> with FB3 and thought that nested layouts were the best
> thing since
> sliced bread. Later, I realized the limitations.
> marlon
> S. Isaac Dealey wrote:
>> > Finally as there has been plenty discussion of FB
>> > recently
>> > and its pros
>> > and cons I would strongly advise anyone evaluating a
>> > framework to
>> > actually evaluate it by using it and *not* by
>> > soliciting
>> > opinions. For
>> > every argument against using fusebox there is one for
>> > using it!
>>
>> > HTH
>>
>> > Kola
>>
>> I absolutely agree. As a matter of fact, I second it. the
>> up-side is
>> that after you've built a small app or two with any given
>> framework
>> you should have a decent feel for whether or not it's a
>> good match for
>> the way you think. The downside is that doing this does
>> require an
>> investment of time above and beyond simple research. In
>> my opinion
>> it's the only way to adequately evaluate a framework.
>>
>> I've done a lot of work with Fusebox 3 over the past 2
>> years -- which
>> is why my first article with performance comparisons
>> focused on that
>> and the onTap framework -- they were the 2 I already
>> knew. I won't be
>> publishing the following articles with similar
>> comparisons of FB4 or
>> Mach-II until I have more time to learn the frameworks.
>>
>> s. isaac dealey 214-823-9345
>>
>> team macromedia volunteer
>> http://www.macromedia.com/go/team
>>
>> chief architect, tapestry cms http://products.turnkey.to
>>
>> onTap is open source
>> http://www.turnkey.to/ontap
>>
>
_____
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
