I like bastardizing Fusebox... in its purest sense it is ideal like OOP... OOP is still quite abstract as most developers learned non-OOP stuff as a an introduction into computing...code has a lot of dependencies on other things and programs can break for some distant reasons...
Fusebox specification is interesting and has some good things about it... notably the centralized index.cfm ... however, I think fused sites would work better if people flattened all the subdirs down to just one index page... we often get plagued by subdirs and sub indexes... lots of open this file and that file.. reminds me of compile time with any other language... notably C and Java... At any rate, I would say the Fusebox specification should be shown to all developers... it is a good centralized sort of design... nice to see we can go to one page to add a new handler if you will that is in fact a page with its own logic... makes sense, like a building directory or book index... the naming convention and idea of breaking things into display and sql isolated files is pretty good.. as it allows me to hop into a project and find broken pieces on other developers work and immediately go to tweaking things.. IN its finest form it isolate things so you can have in a real development environment: 1. A DBA writing SQL. 2. A designer doing the DSP pages. 3. A web master handling the index.cfm files.. 4. A web developer handling the logic and programming.. to me, it makes collaboration able to exist... and I suppose that is in part one of the designs and benefits of OOP... with the FUSE you have 4 points of problems.. with debugging on you can see the pieces.. you can see the variables.. you can see the parts and logic... and isolating things can be alarmingly easy... -paris -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 08:52 To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: THE LATE GREAT FUSEBOX DEBATE I almost hate to reply to this thread but i gotta throw in my two cents. we all know that fuse box is the attempt to OOP-ize CF so why not just look at it the same way as any other OOP language. it can be powerful if you have full command of the language and cumbersome if not by adding undue complexity where an experienced programmer would use a more direct and efficient built in feature i.e., proper use of includes, custom tags, cfx, and what not. so i ask myself when defining a project, why use OOP libraries for something u could do with a scriptlet? if it's big enuff and you need fusebox, use it because it CAN be abbreviated and massaged to your liking. if not, take it easy on yourself and bill like ur using it :P "Joseph Thompson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 11/19/2001 03:41:36 PM Please respond to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: CF-Talk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> cc: Subject: Re: THE LATE GREAT FUSEBOX DEBATE Last week in Vancouver he specifically ducked backing any one methodology although he did say a) you should use one b)A methodology is no good if it requires that you "re learn" everything you know Being a big fan of the rollover form (and "hating" the form-->action-->display approach) I found Fusebox a real joy. I didn't have to relearn anything as I always wrote my forms "assuming" there would be default values. Now i just CFPARAM my values to the Attributes scope. That file, and the query files live seperate so when someone decides to "mod" the dbase you just need to "mod" those two files. . > I am really curious about Ben Forta's opinion of Fusebox? Has anyone > been able to corner him into saying anything one way or the other? > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
