Becuase we wanted to do an Opensource CMS for the Cold Fusion application
server.
You can find out more about Fusebox, FuseDoc, Devnotes at fusebox.org or
halhelms.com
-Shawn Regan
-----Original Message-----
From: Patrick McElhaney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2001 11:01 AM
To: CF_OpenSource
Subject: RE: Next step
> >> is cfObjects a work-around for clients who are committed to CF?
> Yes, CFO is simply a way to allow people who already use ColdFusion to
> implement OO features. It obviously has other benefits simply than
> making an OO-comfortable person happy with their CF development. It
> would work perfectly in this situation for the same reason. ColdFusion
> has been decided as the language of choice. The ColdFusion vs.
> 'compiled OOP language' decision is already over.
In that case, I'm interested in why you chose Cold Fusion over more
powerful languages.
> >> Is there a real advantage...?
> In that light, the real advantage is that web site development in
> ColdFusion becomes much more powerful, just in the same way the
> introduction of OOP made compiled languages and applications more
> powerful. All the same benefits apply.
Those languages were already around before the advent of OOP. ColdFusion
came after it had already taken a firm hold.
> >> Have you done any work beyond simply making Cold Fusion OO?
> No, that's basically been the effort of the cfObjects framework.
> However, we did implement a nice XML-based documentation feature about 6
> months ago and added an event-based system.
I was looking at that on the web site the other day. It looks interesting.
Fusebox just launched a new XML-based documenation standard (today
actually) and we have sort of an event model, though I think there's
room for improvement. Where can I get more information?
> The whole reason I hopped on board with it is because I came from a VB,
> C++, and Java (later on) background. Given the choice to work in
> QuickBasic or VB6 for a 3-tier accounting application, which would you
> choose? The choice is obvious.
BASIC was my first love. I hate VB. If forced into those two options, of
course I would choose VB. But if had a choice I'd go with Java.
> Is cfObjects always needed? Of course not, that's ridiculous to assume.
I guess I'm looking for a one-size-fits all solution. Or at least one
size can be tailored to fit all, possibly with the addition of some
accessories -- assuming that CF is the appropriate platform in the first
place. ;-)
> Is Fusebox always needed? I must say yes to that, but in a different
> way. People must always have a methodology for developing an
> application. Whether it's Fusebox, Chuckbox or Kylebox doesn't matter.
> As long as they see the benefit of having a well documented, manageable
> process. Fusebox is a fantastic starting point for people who don't
> have something in place yet.
I think that's an accurate description of Fusebox in the beginning, but
it's been refined and improved over the years by dozens of smart people.
It's kind of like XP in that sense. It's the best option because it
employs the best features from all of the other options.
Patrick
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
