> of why it is better to use the Fusebox method
> than just straight forward CF.
> Also, can anyone point me in the direction of
> a good online introduction to Fusebox as there
> doesn't seem to be much on the Fusebox website.
The same reasons any framework is better than straightforward CF
really. Having a consistent and identifiable structure means it's (at
least in theory) easier to debug, maintenance is easier, it's easier
for new developers coming onto a project who are already familiar with
the framework to pick up the application, and it's easier to identify
and describe the technical underpinnings of an application's
functionality when you have a well-defined lingo for your structure
(circuits, fuses, etc. in the case of Fusebox).
My research has found very little introductory information about
Fusebox available online in all honesty. (Not just me, the best
introductory Fusebox tutorial I was able to find said the same thing.)
Fusebox by and large seems to have been propogated with books and
classes. Last I checked, the core files download for Fusebox 3 (not
sure/don't remember about Fusebox 4) didn't even say anything about
how to write/compose/configure the circuits template -- without which
nothing works.
Although ultimately my own disenchantment with Fusebox has very little
to do with the need to spend money to get information about it.
(Because in all honesty I've never felt the need for more information
about the framework.) In my case Fusebox just didn't do what I wanted
it to do. Doesn't make it a bad framework - if you like it, by all
means use it. Personally I found that the more I worked with Fusebox,
the more I ended up writing the same few lines of code over and over
again. The larger an application became, the more apparent it was that
Fusebox didn't save me many (if any) keystrokes.
So in light of my desire to get more out of my day (to be more
productive) I took an idea I'd had laying around and built it up into
a full-fledged framework of my own. Although there have been many
features added to the onTap framework (the API is very feature-ritch
in comparison to other frameworks), this idea of automated code
execution and corresponding time savings remains much of the purpose
behind the framework. Other major ideals I've tried to promote include
platform (os/rdbms) independent coding, powerful and encapsulated
branding and customization without editing existing or core code, and
safe and easy upgrades to published applications even after they've
been customized.
s. isaac dealey 954.927.5117
new epoch : isn't it time for a change?
add features without fixtures with
the onTap open source framework
http://www.sys-con.com/story/?storyid=44477&DE=1
http://www.sys-con.com/story/?storyid=45569&DE=1
http://www.fusiontap.com
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
