it's not really a question of it's good or bad, it's a question of what
is it missing? I've seen a ton of Fusebox code with everything you've
mentioned below.
It ROCKS for Frames, here is a presentation on it:
http://www.fusebox.org/Files/presentations/FuseboxandFrames.ppt
Javascript works great with Fusebox, even psuedo-javascript for browsers
like Avantgo, just name your files with a "JS_" prefix for files that
contain nothing but JS, or put JS code directly in your display files.
It's that simple.
Flash is cake, Fusebox is used both when sending requests back to the
server which not really too much different than regular HTML connects,
and use dsp files for calling the flash movies and act files when
changing data back on the server.
COM/EJB this is again a judgment call on what you name the file that
makes the COM or EJB requests and what it does. COM and EJB can do a
ton of different things so it's just a matter of naming conventions for
the fuse that calls the COM objects or EJBs. That's it.
Stored Procedures.... "qry_" files if the SP is getting data from the
DB, or "act_" files if the SP is changing data in the database. In
either case, it doesn't really matter what you name the file, it's just
not going to have any display to your user, so separate that CFML code
from the display CFML.
It's not meant to be a standard for all the languages you can plug into
CF, just for when calling CF pages. It's just a bunch of naming
conventions and solutions to common problems. If your problems aren't
solved by the current solutions, offer new ones that's the whole idea!
Still not convinced? Drink beer with me at the conference, I'd love to
chat more!
love ya Dave! K:-)
Steve
Dave Watts wrote:
>
> > > I'm not a Fusebox fan, by any measure,
> >
> > Why not? What would need to be changed to make you a fan?
>
> I'd have to be working on applications where the complex logic is stored in
> CF, instead of in other application tiers. I don't want to fuel another "Is
> Fusebox good or bad" thread, but I don't think it fits well with the type of
> applications that we focus on here at Fig Leaf, which typically have lots of
> client-side complexity, like frames, JavaScript, Flash, etc. and have lots
> of application logic within other application tiers on the server-side, like
> within stored procedures or COM/EJB.
>
> On the other hand, if I was working on an application with all of its
> complexity within CF, I'd probably like Fusebox quite a bit. Once you move
> most of that complexity from CF to other tiers, though, Fusebox doesn't do
> much for you, in my opinion.
>
> 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/
> Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists or send a message
>with 'unsubscribe' in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists or send a message
with 'unsubscribe' in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
