Anybody got resources on flash/fusebox? It would be really nice to do am app
in flash to have it look nice. I can just imagine clicking the delete button
and having the data fly into a trash bin, or being torched with a
flamethrower! Haha.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Nelson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Fusebox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2001 3:46 PM
Subject: Re: Weakness: Too Focused on Application Tier?
> 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
