I agree with Hal. The major problem with CFObjects is that you have to
tackle the additiona learning curve of an OO methodology, *and* the
documentation/sample-apps leave a lot to be desired for a person new to the
methodology. If CFO only had a like Hal hawking it, it'd get a much wider
notice :)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Hal Helms" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, December 22, 2000 5:00 PM
Subject: RE: Fusebox
> I have to disagree regarding CFObjects, a framework written by my friend,
> Ralph Fiol. CFObjects is completely fleshed out and has been tested by
many
> programmers. In fact, version 2 is in beta form right now. While I prefer
> Fusebox as a methodology, I don't think it's fair to say CFObjects isn't
> there yet. Just my opinion...
>
> Hal Helms
> == See www.ColdFusionTraining.com for info on "Best Practices with
> ColdFusion & Fusebox" training, Jan 22-25 ==
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Theobald [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, December 22, 2000 9:53 AM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: RE: Fusebox
>
>
> Several people have thrown out the term 'CFObjects.' But if you good read
> up on CFObjects it is not really fleshed out and certainly not thoroughly
> tested by different programmers on different types of projects. It is just
a
> good starting point to make an object oriented methodology out of Cold
> Fusion programming.
>
> What I like about Fusebox is it is the first methodology I have seen that
> specifically addresses the idiosyncrasies of web programming. The fact
that
> it is geared for Cold Fusion is just a plus. Web programming is not the
same
> as procedural programming, and although close it is not exactly the same
as
> event-driven programming either.
> Does anyone know of any more 'researched' web programming methodologies?
>
>
> At 09:47 AM 12/22/00 +0000, Adam Reynolds wrote:
> >Jeff,
> >You keep on going on about other methodologies. Which particular other
> >methodologies using CF are publicly available? You keep mentioning all
> >these other methodologies, but can we at least compare them to Fusebox?
> >
> >Fusebox is probably one of the best methodologies (if not the only public
> >methodology) available for a ColdFusion developer. The book also covers a
> >number of fundemental design elements that any CF'er should understand.
> >EVEN if they don't do Fusebox.
> >
> >Adam
> >
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Jeffry Houser [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> >Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2000 1:47 PM
> >To: CF-Talk
> >Subject: Re: Fusebox
> >
> >
> >
> >"Warrick, Mark" wrote:
> >
> >> The fusebox methodology has many benefits, and I really don't think it
> >adds any time to the development cycle. In fact, I'm pretty sure it
helps
> >speed up development.
> >>
> >
> > Well, that has nothing to do w/ Fusebox. Any programming methodology
> >will offer
> >this benefit. The key is having one in place and sticking to it.
> >
> >
> >>
> >> One of the greatest advantages of the style is that you can modularize
> >you code, and in doing so, you can assign pieces of your application to
> >various developers without worrying about them stepping on each other's
> >toes.
> >>
> >
> > See above. This is not unique to fusebox.
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Another advantage is that certain companies (such as mine) require it.
> >So if you don't do it, you're not going to get a job with certain
> >companies.
> >>
> >
> > If you are not a consultant, that is complete hogwash, I think.
> >Especially with today's job market. Fusebox (or whatever methodology the
> >company uses) should be more than
> >willing to train on the methodology. If you already know the language
> >(What company
> >doesn't have enough trouble finding people who know the language?),
> >learning the
> >coding practices should be easy enough.
> >
> > I did one job, where the first thing they did was sit me down and
> >outline the
> >coding practices. It took about a half hour sitting down with the lead
> >developer.
> >I took notes, and then followed them. No problems.
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Lastly, it's very simple to follow the programming flow of a fusebox
> >app. When something goes wrong, you simply search for the fuseaction in
> >the index file and then you'll see right away all the templates in a
> >single handy block that could be involved with the problem.
> >>
> >
> > As I said previously, any methodology worth its salt should offer this.
> >If
> >I don't know fusebox, then your app isn't going to be any easier to
follow
> >than
> >some other unknown methodology. (It probably will be easier to follow
than
> >random coding, though)
> >
> >--
> >Jeff Houser | mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >AIM: Reboog711 | ICQ: 5246969 | Phone: 860-229-2781
> >--
> >Instant Cold Fusion 4.5 | ISBN: 0-07-213238-8
> >Due out 3rd Quarter 2001
> >--
> >DotComIt, LLC
> >database driven web data using ColdFusion, Lotus Notes/Domino
> >--
> >Half of the Alternative Folk Acoustic Duo called Far Cry Fly
> >http://www.farcryfly.com | http://www.mp3.com/FarCryFly
> >--
> >Promise me no dead end streets, and I'll guarantee we'll have a road
> >
>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at
http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
