Actually, Dave posted some comments recently where he said, basicly, that
Fusebox is a fine methodology, just not one suited for the type of
applications that FigLeaf does, or their style of doing them, anyway. He
gives some general examples. His reasoning makes sense. Check out the
CF-Talk archives. These comments were in the past 2 months.
Remeber, Fusebox is just a methodology and only one way of doing things.
It's not a bunch of hard and fast rules. Many people borrow bits and pieces
of it and adapt them to suit their own wants/needs/desires. I suggest you
do something similar and evaluate each project from an individual
development standpoint. In my opinion, Fusebox is a always a great starting
point for deciding how and why to lay out your application and should be
considered first .. but, strict adherence to it is not always the best end
point :)
Todd
----- Original Message -----
From: "paul smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Fusebox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, January 06, 2001 1:54 PM
Subject: RE: arguments **against** fusebox
> Dave has made extensive postings here/cf-talk in the past on the subject
of
> why Fig Leaf does not use Fusebox style. Check the archives.
>
> I'm not so sure it's that he doesn't LIKE it as much as Fig Leaf uses
their
> own style they feel is better suited to the type of websites/clients they
> deal with.
>
> best, paul
>
> At 01:13 PM 1/6/01 -0500, you wrote:
> >I understand that Dave Watts of Figleaf is not a fan of Fusebox at all,
but
> >I haven't heard what it is he doesn't like about it. Dave is such a
> >knowledgeable person that I'd certainly think seriously about what he has
to
> >say on the subject.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
