Oh yeah, one thing Alan didn't mention was how Fusebox ties in with
Flash... that's client side like Javascript.
I'm still researching this, but even with Flash I think Fusebox will
work fabulous. It just acts as the conduit between the database Server
and Flash. In Flash you can use the actionscript function GetURL() to
obtain data from the server. So this would tie into Fusebox by simply
specifying the correct Fuseaction to call depending on where the user
clicks. Then simply have a file that creates whatever XML packet is
needed in your Flash movie.
Fusebox is definitely not only focused on the App-Server layer.
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
