You just said the magic word -- combining Fusebox with CFObjects. Ralph and
I are working on that right now. Still, Dave's argument is a very good one:
if you want to use OO as a methodology, why not use a language like Java
that supports it inherently.
Hal Helms
== See www.ColdFusionTraining.com for info on "Best Practices with
ColdFusion & Fusebox" training, Jan 22-25 ==
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2000 1:32 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Fusebox
aw hell even i can answer that Hal, from what i understand of cfobjects ,
its the only methodology that makes truly modular parts to your
applications.
In fusebox its just written in a modular way, cfobjects contains the whole
thing in its own little world, which to me is what i call real modular
framework, it also makes reusability even easier i think.
i suspect the best would be somewhere in between fusebox and cfobjects
MikeC
> ** Original Subject: RE: Fusebox
> ** Original Sender: "Hal Helms" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> ** Original Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 18:35:07 -0500
> ** Original Message follows...
>
> Yes, there's definitely that argument, Dave -- and it's a good one.
Someone
> once posted a question on the CFObjects forum, "If you're going to do OO,
> what not just do Java?" I'm still waiting to hear a good answer.
>
> I think CFObjects can be a good bridge for folks moving from CFML to a
true
> OO language such as Ruby or Java.
>
> Hal Helms
> == See www.ColdFusionTraining.com for info on "Best Practices with
> ColdFusion & Fusebox" training, Jan 22-25 ==
>
>
> -----Original Message-----From: Dave Watts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Sunday, December 24, 2000 5:06 PM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: RE: Fusebox
>
>
> > 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 :)
>
> I'd argue that the major problem with CFObjects is something completely
> different. I don't think tacking object-orientation onto CF - which is
> pretty much a batch-processing environment - is such a great idea. If you
> want to write OO code, you'd be better served with an OO language.
>
> Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
> http://www.figleaf.com/
> voice: (202) 797-5496
> fax: (202) 797-5444
>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Paid Sponsorship ~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Get Your Own Dedicated Win2K Server! Instant Activation for $99/month w/Free Setup
from SoloServer PIII600 / 128 MB RAM / 20 GB HD / 24/7/365 Tech Support Visit
SoloServer, https://secure.irides.com/clientsetup.cfm.
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
