I've got a fusebox tattoo, so nah!
:^)
Kidding,
Brad
-----Original Message-----
From: Jones, Matt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, October 20, 2000 6:42 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: fusebox style: too much disk access?
If the code is logical, organized, and well written, it shouldn't matter if
you utilize the Fusebox methodology or not, fusebox assists people with
accomplishing these things. If you do it without using the fusebox
methodology, that doesn't make you wrong. Any approach to programming that
is not logical, organized, and well written is a pain to debug, maintain,
and update, regardless of whether it is in fusebox or not. The fact that so
many fuseboxers take offense to non-fuseboxers and vice versa is rather
disturbing. We should strive to forward ourselves by not getting into nit
picky arguments amongst ourselves about matters of style, and focus on
helping each other with the problems that we all run into.
-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Theobald [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, October 20, 2000 3:33 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: fusebox style: too much disk access?
Since we're talking about it... I always thought that breaking up an
application by "type of activity in the file" like dsp for display and qry
for query didn't make sense. I want to break up my application by logical
"object" like a user profile, an inventory item, etc..
At 11:19 AM 10/20/00 -0700, Nat Papovich wrote:
>What-evah, Dave. Fusebox kicks ass for the very implementation you mention.
>COMs can be called from a single file (using a new prefix com_filename.cfm
>if you want), then whenever you need that COM, you cfinclude that file.
>
>Maybe it would help us if you made a distinction between application logic
>encapsulation and business rules encapsulation. If you do both within
>COM/EJB, then you practically don't even need CF for anything other than
>CFOUTPUT. If however, you want application logic in COM, but still want
>business rules in CF, then Fusebox is great. No?
>
>It seems to me that if you remove application and business logic from CF,
>then a structured application architecture (like Fusebox) becomes less of a
>necessity. What kind of CF architecture do you guys use in EJB/COM-heavy
>apps?
>
>Nat Papovich
>ICQ 32676414
>"I'm for truth no matter who tells it."
>-Malcolm X, 1965
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Dave Watts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>Sent: Friday, October 20, 2000 10:12 AM
>To: CF-Talk
>Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
>Subject: RE: fusebox style: too much disk access?
>
>
>> > 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]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Theobald, Chief Technology Officer
LiquidStreaming http://www.liquidstreaming.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Phone 1.212.545.1232 x204 Fax 1.212.545.0938
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------
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]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
