Listen to Jeff. His advice is very powerful and most honorable.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeff Peters [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2001 11:45 AM
> To: Fusebox
> Subject: Re: Porting Old Site
>
>
> Sounds like a golden opportunity to me, Jay. Your existing site
> means that
> you've effectively completed the development cycle through the
> prototype phase.
> Print out pages from the existing site, identify exit points for
> XFAs, and off
> you go. I'm actually about to do something similar using a
> couple of the tools
> I've written for FB development. Here's the process:
>
> - Create a mind map of the application using Visual Mind
> (www.visual-mind.com).
> - Nodes in the map are:
> - main app
> - circuits
> - fuseactions
> - fuse files
> - Fuse file nodes' Notes panes contain Fusedoc for the file
> - Export the mind map to a text outline
> - Run Fuseminder to generate the Fusebox framework
> - Edit fuseboxes (index.cfm) to add XFA cfsets
> - Edit dsp files to add existing HTML
> - Run Harness to generate test harnesses for fuse files
> - Use Harness reference to tweak structures, if necessary
> - Hand out fuse files and their associated test harnesses to coders
> - Use test harnesses to unit test finished fuses
> - Integrate and application test
>
> Fuseminder and Harness are available at www.GrokFusebox.com; look
> under "Grok's
> Goodies".
>
> Everyone has their own approach to development. I'm not saying
> my way is any
> better or worse than anyone else's, but it is significantly faster, since
> Fuseminder and Harness are designed to bang out tedious code that would
> otherwise take hours. If you decide to give 'em a try, let me
> know; I'm always
> interested in how they work for others.
>
> - Jeff
>
> On 10 May 2001, at 10:27, Jay Jennings wrote:
>
> > I'd like some advice from the FB crowd...
> >
> > I'm reworking a site that was kind of built in fits and starts
> over the past
> > few years. The thought at first was that I'd just change code that is
> > affected by the new data integrity restraints in the database,
> but as I get
> > into it I'm starting to think that rewriting from the ground up
> might be the
> > better option.
> >
> > Here's some details...the current site was NOT done with fusebox but
> > eventually we'd like to port it that way. We're not changing any of the
> > screens at this point -- it's all behind the scenes changes.
> >
> > So, since we have a new database, and we have a prototype (the current
> > working site), I'm thinking we'll have fewer headaches if we
> just build the
> > new fused site now, instead of tweaking this one and porting it
> to fusebox
> > later.
> >
> > Has anyone done this kind of thing? Am I correct in thinking it
> won't take
> > longer to build from the ground up -- especially since the
> current site can
> > be used as a spec?
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > ..jj..
> >
> > - - - - -
>
> ==============================================================
> | Jeffrey S. Peters | "Specialization is for insects." |
> | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | - Lazarus Long |
> | PGP key for Jeffrey S. Peters at ldap://keyserver.pgp.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
