I wasn't suggesting an alternative methodology. I was simply pointing
out issues with the suggested methodology.
-Matt
-----Original Message-----
From: Shawn Regan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, August 06, 2001 2:46 PM
To: CF_OpenSource
Subject: RE: CMS project comments
First off about Fusebox and why I think its the best to use in this
case.
Since this is an open source project and that we are going to use
Fusebox,
anyone that comes along to help out can understand the application by
reading about the standards of Fusebox at fusebox.org and when they open
any
files they will understand what's going on with out us having to hold
their
hand and teaching them our own method or programming structure that we
may
have come up with if we did not choose Fusebox or any other method.
I see this as a way for us to save time and to keep use from
reinventing
the wheel. Fusebox exists and lots of people use, and there is a great
support net for it.
Also, I don't think you have read about the tests that have been done on
its
scalability. But if you have full documentation and great support for
your
method for CF I would like to check it out and read your research done
on
it.
Shawn Regan
Applications Developer
Pacific Technology Solutions
-----Original Message-----
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, August 06, 2001 1:32 PM
To: CF_OpenSource
Subject: RE: CMS project comments
Certainly.
I have found Fusebox sites are able to handle about 35 requests per
second on average. This is of course variable depending on the
application and its requirements. However, I can tell you that 35
requests per second is quite slow. The big killer appears to be the use
of custom tags. Of course there are various types performance tweaks
that can be made to Fusebox beyond custom tags, but nothing that would
have a huge impact.
I challenge you to name a high profile site done in Fusebox that scales.
-Matt
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Everland [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, August 06, 2001 12:47 PM
To: CF_OpenSource
Subject: RE: CMS project comments
Have you ever run any scalability tests on fusebox? We didn't
pick
it because it was popular, almost the entire group already codes in it.
The
fusebox.org group has run a lot of scalability tests on it and it scales
as
much as CF does. They aren't doing anything crazy with the code, the
most
they are doing is using includes. Not thousands of include, but maybe
per
page there are 10. There are a lot of high profile sites that scale
already
that use fusebox. You should really do some research before you assume
things and post to a list. Just the attitude you came to the group with
is
ridiculous, everyone here is eager to help, but you seem to want to
negotiate with us for your time. Well we are all volunteers here, you're
not
the greatest CF programmer on earth and we don't need you. I would
rather
have a programmer with no experience willing to help than someone who
can
make an application with hundreds of thousands of hits with an attitude
like
yours.
Robert Everland III
Dixon Ticonderoga
Web Developer Extraordinaire
-----Original Message-----
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, August 06, 2001 3:36 PM
To: CF_OpenSource
Subject: RE: CMS project comments
I wasn't suggesting doing OOP. In fact I never understood why people
keep trying to do OOP with CF. I am suggesting that you need a
methodology that scales and Fusebox doesn't. Choosing a methodology
isn't a popularity contest. It is about figuring our what is the best
for the project's requirements. In this case you are choosing a popular
methodology for dynamic web sites instead of determining your
application's requirements and then choosing a methodology.
-Matt
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Everland [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, August 06, 2001 12:25 PM
To: CF_OpenSource
Subject: RE: CMS project comments
Not to get on a rant or anything but CF alone by itself is not an OOP
language, most of the programmers including myself have no expereience
in
doing OOP (though a lot on the list may). Fusebox is about as close to
an
organized way of programming CF as you can get, it's not new and it has
proven itself in a lot of instances. It's not better than Java and it's
not
better than OOP, but this is CF. So we're sorry you don't wish to help
us,
but a final decision had to be made to use a standard methodology and
Fusebox was the most popular on the list.
Robert Everland III
Dixon Ticonderoga
Web Developer Extraordinaire
-----Original Message-----
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, August 06, 2001 3:12 PM
To: CF_OpenSource
Subject: CMS project comments
My team and I are currently building a CMS using CF and Java that has to
handle hundreds of thousands of content objects and scale to handle
millions of page requests an hour. I would be happy to contribute to an
open source CMS that can do the same thing. I may even be able to open
source code we have created here at DevX for our CMS. However, I am
unwilling to contribute to a project that shoots itself in the foot by
using something like Fusebox. It is important to use a scalable and
extensible application framework and architecture. Fusebox is neither.
While Fusebox is good for people who don't know how to create their own
architecture and/or framework, it should be avoided by those that do.
-Matt
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at
http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
