For what it's worth, I've been giving the whole issue of Fusebox and site
architecture some thought lately (hopefully to appear in a future CFDJ, Alan),
and one of my major conclusions is that Fusebox is a very good for application
designs across a variety of application scopes. The issue isn't the
methodology, it's the understanding of the site, the application's role in the
site, and the standards established by the site/application architect. The
great thing about Fusebox is: it makes you start thinking about things in an
analytical fashion.
At the bottom of it all, every problem consists of two chunks: analysis and
synthesis. You've got to break the problem down (analyze) into small enough
pieces to understand each one. Only then can you put together (synthesize) the
pieces of a solution and, in turn, the complete solution. Fusebox is a tool to
facilitate analysis of problems and synthesis of CF/ASP/JSP/YourEnviroHere
solutions, ergo Fusebox is good.
Finally, one observation: for Figleaf's "glue" approach to help me develop a
better application, I have to either work for Figleaf or hire them to develop
for me. Works for them; does nada for me.
- Jeff
==============================================================
| Jeffrey S. Peters | "Specialization is for insects." |
| [EMAIL PROTECTED] | - Lazarus Long |
==============================================================
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
