> Is there *anyone* who doesn't like Fusebox!? Certainly seems
> that way..
Sure there is. Personally, I don't use Fusebox, and I'm unlikely to use it
for future projects. I don't know that I'd say I don't "like" it, but it
certainly doesn't fit within my development process, nor that of Fig Leaf.
Fusebox, like any other methodology, contains certain goals, and as a
result, certain limitations. Fusebox is aimed at building CF-centric
applications which are database independent and modular. That all sounds
good, right? Not necessarily.
At Fig Leaf, our goals are not to build CF-centric applications, but n-tier
applications. We partition application logic between the application server
(CF), the database, the client, and potentially object tiers between the
application server and the database. Fusebox doesn't address how to manage
that complexity, so it doesn't work for us from that approach.
We provide complex client interfaces, using frames, JavaScript, Dynamic HTML
and Flash. It's not uncommon for our applications to have one frame
dynamically generating the contents of another. Fusebox, with its header and
footer files, is spectacularly unsuited to this.
In summary, for us, it would make our applications more complex than they
have to be, and provide little or no benefit. Does this mean that Fusebox is
"bad"? Of course not. If it suits the kind of development you do - if its
goals are also your goals - then it's the methodology for you. If not, maybe
it isn't.
You might respond that it's the only methodology out there, or that it's
better than others with which you're familiar. This doesn't matter. You're
better off building your own methodology, one step at a time, than adopting
something which doesn't fit you. You'll simply constrict your own work.
Finally, no matter how much you like or dislike Fusebox, it's just a
methodology. It's not the answer to world hunger, it's not a dessert topping
or a floor wax. You can write good, maintainable code using Fusebox (again,
if that's the kind of application you're building) or you can write an
unmaintainable mess using Fusebox. A methodology can't save you from poor
coding, and, despite the appeal of a common "standard", you shouldn't use it
unless it'll work for your applications.
Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
http://www.figleaf.com/
voice: (202) 797-5496
fax: (202) 797-5444
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/
To Unsubscribe visit
http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists&body=lists/cf_talk or send a
message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with 'unsubscribe' in the body.
