A quick note, more later.
If all of the application logic and business rules are encapsulated in COM
or JavaBeans or on the DB side and all you're doing is calling things, then
Fusebox can be too much rigidity. Very few developers out there are
comfortable with using CF only as "glue", like Figleaf does.
NAT
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Briscoe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2001 2:24 PM
> To: Fusebox
> Subject: Weakness: Too Focused on Application Tier?
>
>
> 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
