conference coming up in mid September http://www.cfconf.org/fusebox2004.
Its put on by the same people who put on CFUN.
There is a dearth of materials. I've made some stuff available on my web
site. I've bugged the fusebox powers that be about more community support.
You can get info at the fusebox mailing list, [EMAIL PROTECTED], the
fusebox forums (available at the fusebox.org site) or just google fusebox,
there is stuff out there, unfotunately its scattered.
Sandy Clark
http://www.shayna.com <http://www.shayna.com/>
CF Pretty Accessible at http://www.shayna.com/blog
Now offering 4 days Hands on CSS training October 11-14th. Rockville, MD.
For more information go to:
http://www.teratech.com/training/oc_classes.cfm#css
_____
From: Simeon Bateman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, September 03, 2004 11:00 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Fusebox
Hey Andrew,
I can't believe no one has responded to this. Its typically the
flame-bait that starts long threads on this list.
I have been developing fusebox apps for about 3 years. Started with
fb3, and once I switched companies in december and had access to cfmx,
immediatly switched to fb4.
Have been a manager of a group of developers I can say that above all
else choosing a framework has the benifit of putting all your
developers on the same page. No longer does any individual developer
have to guess at where someone else put certain logic or will this
conform with the groups efforts. Also if it comes time where you need
to bring on additional developers, it is very easy to single out
people skills or show them the path to get up to speed with your
development.
Now I know that this isnt selling fusebox per se, but I think it
covers the more important topic. Having "A" framework is very
important.
Ok, so fusebox. I like fusebox because it makes sense for me. It is
procedural and structured. My own develpment efforts had brought me
along much the sam path as fusebox, whil I was leaning CF. And the
benifits that came from upgraing to fb4 made it a no brainer, those
including flexibility and speed.
However its important to note that depending on where your expertise
lies, it make make more sense for your team to adopt Mach-ii. Which
is of couse an OO frame work for CF Development. This is also an
implicit invocation architecture, which basically means that that the
peices that run when a page is requested are not hard coded at design
time.
I think its also important to note that if you like the procedural
approach but like the benifits of Implicit Invocation, you can check
out OnTap. I will be honest here, in that I have not checked out
OnTap, and the only reason I know what I do about it because Sean
Corfield mentioned it when he spoke last month at the Portland CFUG.
Anyhow, I hope some of this helps you decide what the next step for
you will be. For more information about Fusebox you can visit
fusebox.org. The forums are a great place to search there and there
are a couple books out. For mach-ii visit http://mach-ii.com/ or
http://mach-ii.com/. And with any luck Issac will see this post and
put up some information about OnTap.
Good Luck
sim
----- Original Message -----
From: Andrew Dixon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2004 23:43:26 +0100
Subject: Fusebox
To: CF-Talk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Hi Everyone.
We are just about to start a major new project, well actually a
complete upgrade from the ground up of an old project, but I have been
looking at doing it in a much more structured way and I wanted some
opinion about using Fusebox. We have never used it before, but we are
all highly experienced CF programmers (5+ years). What I'm really
looking for is some explaining 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.
Thanks
Andrew.________________________________
_____
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
