Fusebox, IMHO, is a little slow if you use it without modification to the core files. There are tradeoffs with any approach, and one of the tradeoffs of Fusebox is sacrificing some speed for flexibility and ease of use with little requirement to understand how the framework works internally.
Fusebox can eat a lot of memory on a per request basis depending on how you implement and what data you store and use in your app. That's not a Fusebox-specific issue, but again, because you can build without understanding the internals of the framework, you can end up with a memory-hungry application if you are careless.
Fusebox uses layouts for presentation. Layouts limit your presentation flexibility to some extent. There are ways around it, but I am talking about a default FB implementation.
Lastly, and in my own personal pet peeve department, Fusebox apps can be a pain in the ass to debug, but you get the hang of it over time.
Before the flames start, I'm not interested in a debate. My observations are purely anecdotal based on my experiences with FB 3. I have gone the route Sean describes of using CFCs for OO modelling in my apps. I haven't used the other frameworks so I will not comment on them.
Pick a framework and stick with it, or build your own if you prefer. Get the Gang of Four book on patterns for OO development, peek under the covers of FB, Mach II, etc. and see how things work.
>Calvin asks the question that must never be asked... ;)
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Calvin Ward <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>What specifically don't you like about fusebox?
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
