As much as I love Dave, and think he's one of the most brilliant CF
developers on earth, i've always thought his comments about Fusebox were
a little bizarre. They seem to be focused on Fusebox as it was 2 years
ago when it was just getting started.
Fusebox isn't solely focused on the Application server tier. That's
just a silly statement.
For example. Say you want to do all of your database access calls
through stored procedures. i.e. you want to offload some of the
processing from CF to the database. Fusebox says: "Go for it, to tie
your Stored Procedures into your CF application, just put those calls in
qry and/or act files" By doing that you let the next developer know
whether those calls to the database are simply obtaining data or they're
updating the database.
Well... crap.... Alan just posted the same exact thing I did. No need
to finish this email! Read Alan's response! LOL
Steve
Tom Briscoe wrote:
>
> I agree with Lee Borkman. Criticism is a valid part of the discussion here. I,
>like many from the sound of things, see the logic and value of FuseBox. But my own
>development experience is limited. So I question how much I want to "marry" the
>methodology. I've only got so much mental bandwidth to begin.
>
> Dave Watts' comments in CF-Talk on Fusebox were thoughtful. I thank him for that.
>But they've not been analyzed here. I'd like to see if we can pull some useful ideas
>from it.
>
> http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg03160.html
>
> To quote Mr. Watts:
>
> "Fusebox has some serious flaws, as far as a general-purpose methodology for
> web development. Fusebox focuses solely on the application server tier,
> ignoring database and client tiers which exist within every application. It
> focuses on CFML portability, to the exclusion of application partitioning. I
> suspect that Fusebox will run into problems in the future, as Allaire adds
> object tiers to the development platform."
>
> Or I've got a shorter version for you. I asked the man, "So what do you think of
>FuseBox?" when I took the Advanced CF class from him at FigLeaf. (The training there
>is quite good, by the way.) He said, "It's too CF-centric".
>
> Now just what does that mean?
>
> >From what I've read in the CFDJ interview with FigLeaf, they see ColdFusion as the
>"glue" between the client and database sides of an application. So Dave Watts'
>comments make more sense in that context. FigLeaf's own methods work to distribute
>an application's functions to the most appropriate tier. As you know, there are a
>lot of things you CAN do in CF but are much better done with Javascript or stored
>procedures. That makes sense.
>
> So does Fusebox "force" or more mildly "predispose" CF developers to solve problems
>at the application tier to the exclusion others?
>
> Does Fusebox adapt well or poorly to applications that have heavier client and/or
>database side functions? And how are those incorporated into Fusebox?
>
> Tom Briscoe
> Web Developer, AVP
> Compass Bank
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.compassweb.com/
>
>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
