Thank you! I've been waiting for quite a while to hear something more than
"there sure are a lot of files with Fusebox", to which I always want to
respond, "Don't worry; you don't pay by the file."
Dave's concern is certainly a very appropriate one: we don't want to have a
methodology that says, "I've got a hammer and therefore every problem is a
nail." But is this what Fusebox does? If so, I fail to see it. It
specifically addresses the application tier, because that's the sphere CF
operates in. We already have well-defined methodologies for dealing with
databases that virtually all developers use -- Fusebox or not. There are
some vague methodologies--more suggestions, really--for dealing with the
client tier. Again, Fusebox is completely agnostic on this point. If someone
truly has a methodology--a set of procedures that can be followed--I'd love
to hear it. But that is a separate issue from this one.
So those arguments are really red herrings. The question is, is Fusebox a
good application methodology? And on that score, I have yet to hear any
cogent arguments against it.
Hal Helms
== See www.ColdFusionTraining.com for info on "Best Practices with
ColdFusion & Fusebox" training, Jan 22-25 ==
-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Briscoe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2001 5:24 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
