He He. Somebody is catching up on old email.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Hal Helms" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Fusebox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, May 19, 2001 10:19 PM
Subject: RE: Choosing an architecture/methodology (RE: RIGID STANDARDISATION
I N EXTENDED FUSEBOX)
> ***************************** Team Allaire *****************************
> OOO!! Bada-bing!!
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Fred T. Sanders [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2001 9:59 PM
> To: Fusebox
> Subject: Re: Choosing an architecture/methodology (RE: RIGID
> STANDARDISATION I N EXTENDED FUSEBOX)
>
>
> Considering the likelyhood that all he does is piece together, writings
from
> 4 or 5 et al authors, how could he ? :)
>
> Fred
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "BORKMAN Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Fusebox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2001 9:37 PM
> Subject: Choosing an architecture/methodology (RE: RIGID STANDARDISATION I
N
> EXTENDED FUSEBOX)
>
>
> > Hey Nat,
> >
> > I don't even know if Ben himself would describe the code in his books as
> > either an "architecture" or a "methodology". It looks to me like he is
> just
> > giving examples about how particular low-level tags and techniques work.
> >
> > Of course, that was exactly how I started arranging my apps when I began
> > with CF. I knew how to make the tags work, but I didn't really have a
> > notion of how to assemble a real-world application. Then I looked into
> > architectures and methodologies, and FuseBox was the obvious choice.
> >
> > To unravel your somewhat circular definition...
> >
> > To choose the most practical architecture/methodology:
> > Choose the most widely-used practice that you consider sufficiently
> > standardized, sufficiently flexible, and sufficiently simple.
> >
> > This probably disqualifies "stock-n-standard CF architecture", because
is
> it
> > not sufficiently standardised.
> >
> > With luck, anyway, I am probably preaching to the converted on thius
list
> > ;-)
> >
> > Lee.
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Nat Papovich [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Friday, 18 May 2001 2:21
> > To: Fusebox
> > Subject: RE: RIGID STANDARDISATION IN EXTENDED FUSEBOX
> >
> >
> > > build whatever application is needed, and that it is by far the
> > > most popular
> > > ColdFusion architecture around. When the world changes to a different
> >
> > Sorry Lee, but stock-n-standard CF architecture learnt from the Forta
> books
> > and Allaire's Fast Track classes are THE most popular CF architecture
> > around.
> >
> > How good an architecture is, combined with its popularity is what makes
it
> > "good".
> >
> > NAT
> >
> >
> > IMPORTANT NOTICE:
> > This e-mail and any attachment to it is intended only to be read or used
> by
> > the named addressee. It is confidential and may contain legally
> privileged
> > information. No confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by any
> > mistaken transmission to you. If you receive this e-mail in error,
please
> > immediately delete it from your system and notify the sender. You must
> not
> > disclose, copy or use any part of this e-mail if you are not the
intended
> > recipient. The RTA is not responsible for any unauthorised alterations
to
> > this e-mail or attachment to it.
> >
> >
>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
