One thing that I have noticed when talking with other developers. Terminology is always a big hang up. Especially when talking about architectures and frameworks. Often it's hard for developers discuss these things without breaking it down to a very clear, concise level that anyone can understand. Perhaps another stab at explaining it to us as if we were just beginning to learn HTML. -Drew Harris
On 4/29/02 11:27 PM, "Matt Liotta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ok, off the top of my head... > > An architecture would provide: > * context for partitioning application at a macro level into > tiers > * transparent redundancy of tiers > * interfaces specific to each tier for application frameworks to > implement > * additional stuff depending on application > > An application framework would provide: > * abstract implementation of architecture interfaces > * library of concrete architecture interface implementations > * context for partitioning tier into components > * component infrastructure > * additional stuff depending on application > > -Matt > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Steve Nelson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >> Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 9:13 PM >> To: CF-Talk >> Subject: Re: Fusebox (was: I like CFMX) >> >> Sure, list it all. >> >> Steve >> >> Matt Liotta wrote: >> >>> What do you want? Want me to list everything I expect in an > architecture >>> and application framework to show that Fusebox provides known of > them? >>> You don't really need me for that. Go to Google and do a search on >>> software architecture and application frameworks. You will find an >>> amazing amount of infrastructure that Fusebox is no where near >>> providing. You may even discover the true definitions for some of > the >>> terms Fusebox has bastardized. >>> >>> -Matt >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Ken Wilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >>>> Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 8:56 PM >>>> To: CF-Talk >>>> Subject: RE: Fusebox (was: I like CFMX) >>>> >>>>>> So do tell, in detail if you please, what you find >>>>>> objectionable about it. >>>> >>>>> I don't use Fusebox because it does nothing for me. >>>> >>>> >>>> Uh huh. Most enlightening detail there Matt. >>>> >>>> >>> >> > ______________________________________________________________________ Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in ColdFusion and related topics. http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.cfm 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
