Re: Multiple occurrences of CF_TwoSelectsRelated

[Massimo Foti]

> CF_TwoSelectsRelated works well when it is called only once per form
> using the same recordset (in fact, I can get it to work perfectly when
> displaying just one).

This custom tag is a derived version, with a completely rewritten JavaScript
code, that allows multiple instances of the tag:

http://www.cfmentor.com/code/index.cfm?action=zipped&id=10

The site above is in italian, but the zip contains some english instructions


Massimo Foti
Certified Dreamweaver MX Developer
Certified Advanced ColdFusion MX Developer
http://www.massimocorner.com/





~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4
Subscription: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq

Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in 
ColdFusion and related topics. 
http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.cfm

Unsubscribe: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4

RE: Cons to Fusebox

[Michael Wilson]

Hi,

I am with Dave on the fact that I would not suggest a change unless I
felt it to be truly beneficial. I work on allot of non Fusebox stuff;
for that matter the entire back end of one of our PDA apps is written in
ASP... Ick. I would never suggest that it would be wise to get back into
bed with that thing; Fusebox be damned. :) I like working in Fusebox
when I can start from scratch and the situation allows for it or when
the app in question is already written using Fusebox. I only convert
applications when It is something small and quick or when I want to do
it for my own experience.

Best regards, 
Michael Wilson


~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4
Subscription: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq

Get the mailserver that powers this list at 
http://www.coolfusion.com

Unsubscribe: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4

RE: Cons to Fusebox

[Michael Wilson]

Hi,

>> Seriously, how do you measure that?

I think, largely, it is measured against personal experience. If I had
the opportunity to work with you directly and to learn how you do
things, I may indeed find your methods to be superior--and that would be
wonderful. I would then have another standard to apply to my "formula".
The people I have talked with that do feel Fusebox works, speak from
their experiences both individually and within teams, but rarely compare
Fusebox to other frameworks or methodologies.

>> In that case, are they successful because of Fusebox?

I am sure it plays a role in their success. Is Fusebox the driving force
behind their success? I doubt it. The very fact that the individual took
the time to learn any framework says allot about the individual's
character and desires. I totally agree that the success of a project,
Fusebox or otherwise, is based more on the people involved than the
methods used. I have seen some really crappy Fusebox apps and some
really great ones.

Best regards, 
Michael Wilson


~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4
Subscription: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq

This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for 
dependable ColdFusion Hosting.
http://www.cfhosting.com

Unsubscribe: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4

RE: Cons to Fusebox

[Michael Wilson]

Hi,

>> too much time organizing their CF code, and 
>> not enough time figuring out what should be in CF

I use Fusebox almost daily, so I tend to have this under control. I
spend most of my time making sure I write the best CF code I am capable
of. This is not to say I do everything correctly; I learn better ways of
doing things all the time. I can see how someone less familiar with
Fusebox could waste time due to the learning curve, but I suggest this
is a part of adopting any methodology.

>> Do you find yourself going beyond this "raw 
>> form of documentation" anyway, though?

I rarely document outside of the Fusedocs. If I do it is more of an
overview of the application rather than the code behind it. Just about
anything I could comment on about a particular file (fuse) is contained
in the fusedoc. I make inline comments where I feel it is prudent, but
these generally deal more with a specific chunk of code within the file;
e.g. why I did something, that may seem odd later, a certain way.

Best regards, 
Michael Wilson


~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4
Subscription: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq

This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for 
dependable ColdFusion Hosting.
http://www.cfhosting.com

Unsubscribe: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4

RE: Cons to Fusebox

[Michael Wilson]

Hi,

>> I'm sorry that you feel this is 
>> personally directed at you.

I don't feel that way and never said that I did feel that way. I realize
you aren't attacking any individual, much less me. This has actually
been the best most informative Fusebox debate I have ever witnessed. I
am glad I had the opportunity to speak during it.

>> I reserve the right to answer honestly and fully.

Of course you do. I would just like to hear a response with some meat to
it; not necessarily from you, but in general. I would like to see
examples that support views. Most of all I would like to see an unbiased
opinion that is not based on trivial issues. Even though I don't speak
out much, I have always respected your opinions. And I have always tried
to keep an open mind, especially when it comes to frameworks and the
like. I agree with some of the issues you raised; however others are,
imo, minor obstacles with simple solutions and really don't reflect the
bigger picture of the framework. These same types of obstacles also
exist outside the realm of Fusebox.

>> if "kiss my ass" is the best argument you can find,
>> well, good luck with that

Kiss my ass isn't my reply; sorry it seemed that way, I had intended it
as a joke not as a direct comment towards you. I was commenting on your
point about emoticons and certain remarks. Just because one smiles
doesn't mean they think it is going to make you feel better or hope that
their comments sit better with you. If I told you to kiss my ass and
smiled about it, I would likely be smiling because it made me feel
better; however childish it might be. :)

I don't take offense to any of your comments; although, I disagree with
many of them and as I said earlier I am not trying to convert you. I
apologize if my comments were too blunt; I posted too hastily on my way
out of the office, which was irresponsible on my part. I think we all
agree Fusebox isn't for everyone or every situation, but for me--at the
moment--it is. Although I have nothing to gain personally, I hope it
continues to grow as it has and that it becomes more useful to more
people. I think Fb4 is a great stride in that direction.

Best regards, 
Michael Wilson


~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4
Subscription: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq

Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more 
resources for the community. 
http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm

Unsubscribe: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4

Re: mach-ii.com

[Sean A Corfield]

On Friday, Jul 18, 2003, at 03:54 US/Pacific, webguy wrote:
> Is there a mach-ii.com mailing list?

Not yet, I believe. I expect there will be one soon.

> Where can I get info - contribute ?

You can email Ben Edwards.

Sean A Corfield -- http://www.corfield.org/blog/

"If you're not annoying somebody, you're not really alive."
-- Margaret Atwood

~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4
Subscription: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq

Get the mailserver that powers this list at 
http://www.coolfusion.com

Unsubscribe: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4

Coding Guidelines (was: Cons to Fusebox

[Sean A Corfield]

On Friday, Jul 18, 2003, at 12:00 US/Pacific, Matt Robertson wrote:
> If everyone just read Sean Corfield's code guidelines and took them to
> heart that'd be most of the battle won right there.

*blush*

Release 3.0.x is in development. I hope to publish it in late-August. 
Input is welcome...

Sean A Corfield -- http://www.corfield.org/blog/

"If you're not annoying somebody, you're not really alive."
-- Margaret Atwood

~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4
Subscription: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq

Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in 
ColdFusion and related topics. 
http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.cfm

Unsubscribe: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4

Re: Cons to Fusebox

[Sean A Corfield]

On Friday, Jul 18, 2003, at 10:59 US/Pacific, Matt Liotta wrote:
> I saw this thread mentioned on Sean's blog and I was thinking about
> rejoining this list before reading his blog, so here I am.

I'm not sure whether to be flattered that I was the final encouragement 
you needed or whether you joined the list despite reading my blog? 
*grin*

> I think frameworks are extremely valuable and can make an
> enormous difference in the success of web applications especially where
> more than 3 people on working on them.

Agreed.

> Of course, picking the wrong
> framework for an application can lead to all sorts of problems, so the
> notion of one framework being the correct one in every case should be
> abandoned.

Agreed. See my articles about BroadVision's web framework:

http://www.corfield.org/index.php?fuseaction=broadvision.articles

Frameworks, like standards, are great because you have so many to 
choose from... ;)

Sean A Corfield -- http://www.corfield.org/blog/

"If you're not annoying somebody, you're not really alive."
-- Margaret Atwood

~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4
Subscription: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq

Get the mailserver that powers this list at 
http://www.coolfusion.com

Unsubscribe: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4

Re: CFC Session Facade Pattern

[Sean A Corfield]

I think you're considering something like this:

http://www.macromedia.com/devnet/mx/flashremoting/articles/facades.html

As with all abstractions, there is some overhead. The question is  
whether the overhead is worth the benefit - I believe so, certainly for  
macromedia.com

On Friday, Jul 18, 2003, at 13:55 US/Pacific, Erik Yowell wrote:

> I’ve got a couple of CFC-type questions to whoever would be interested
> in answering, or has had experience in this realm:
>  
> Regarding something like a Session Façade pattern ( as illustrated
> http://technet.oracle.com/sample_code/tech/java/j2ee/vsm12/ 
> vsmpatterns.h
> tml#SessionFacade ), would the same state-level advantages hold true  
> for
> session persistent CFCs in CFMX? What kind of overhead would one expect
> implementing a CFC Façade of such degree in CFMX? Is it even worth
> investigating? Perhaps I’m being lazy and not experimenting myself,  
> just
> thought I’d toss this out the list to see if others have had
> positive/negative experiences, being as CFCs are so new in
> implementation.
>
> Erik Yowell
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.shortfusemedia.com

~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4
Subscription: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq

Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in 
ColdFusion and related topics. 
http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.cfm

Unsubscribe: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4

Re: URLs and abstraction (was: RE: Cons to Fusebox)

[Sean A Corfield]

On Friday, Jul 18, 2003, at 10:49 US/Pacific, Barney Boisvert wrote:
> Is www.macromedia.com/software/coldfusion hard to remember?  No, but it
> might change to www.macromedia.com/software/servers/coldfusion next 
> week.

A better example is probably:

http://www.macromedia.com/exchange/coldfusion/

That's a "public API" URL. We effectively promise not to change it.

At one time, it redirected to 
http://devex.macromedia.com/developer/gallery/ (I think) which in turn 
invoked a CF page. Now it redirects to 
http://www.macromedia.com/cfusion/exchange/index.cfm?view=sn110 (I 
think it's sn110 - I'm doing this from memory).

We have a whole set of high-level, memorable URLs that will never 
change. In fact, we've supported some "API" URLs for many years that 
have *never* been real filesystem URLs. They're a convenience for users.

URL abstractions can be a really good thing.

Sean A Corfield -- http://www.corfield.org/blog/

"If you're not annoying somebody, you're not really alive."
-- Margaret Atwood

~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4
Subscription: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq

Get the mailserver that powers this list at 
http://www.coolfusion.com

Unsubscribe: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4

Re: MSDN on CF -> ASP.net

[Sean A Corfield]

On Friday, Jul 18, 2003, at 11:04 US/Pacific, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Events are used for more than just GUI functionality.
>
> You can, for instance create an event listener.  Then, on your web 
> page, create an event that the listener picks up and acts upon.
>
> The nice thing is, the event can originate from anywhere, not just 
> your web page.  Maybe you have another app somewhere else that also 
> creates those events.

This is the principle behind Mach II: http://www.mach-ii.com/

Sean A Corfield -- http://www.corfield.org/blog/

"If you're not annoying somebody, you're not really alive."
-- Margaret Atwood

~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4
Subscription: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq

Get the mailserver that powers this list at 
http://www.coolfusion.com

Unsubscribe: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4

dateAdd() - workaround

[Sean A Corfield]

Mostly for Tony Weeg's benefit, this turned up on the BACFUG list and 
it answers Tony's question about the dateAdd() bug.

Begin forwarded message:
> From: Tariq Ahmed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Fri Jul 18, 2003  08:14:45 US/Pacific
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [bacfug] bug in MX with respect to time calculations
> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Something like, produced the expected results. I don't
> know if this matters, but we're getting an Epoch value
> from a Remedy system that is stored in GMT.
>
>   GMTEpochValue,DateConvert("utc2Local", "January 1 1970
> 00:00"))>
>
>   #DateFormat(localDSI,"Mmm d ")# -
>   #TimeFormat(localDSI,"h:mmtt")#
>
>
>
> --- Sean A Corfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Wednesday, Jul 16, 2003, at 13:51 US/Pacific,
>> Tariq Ahmed wrote:
>>> Hey Sean, thx. Just wanted to know if this was a
>> known
>>> thing. I updated that code I adopted to
>> dateconvert to
>>> utclocal and the result looks accurate, so I'm
>> good on
>>> that front.
>>
>> Could you share the code you used that gave a
>> correct date/time please?

~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4
Subscription: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq

Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in 
ColdFusion and related topics. 
http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.cfm

Unsubscribe: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4

RE: Cons to Fusebox - From the trenches

[Barney Boisvert]

You might be interested in Mach-II (www.mach-ii.com).  Its an implicit
invocation framework that Hal Helms and a couple other guys have been
working on.  It's 100% OO, entirely in CFCs.  I haven't played with it
myself, but it looks pretty hot.  I believe it's in beta now (it was alpha
until recently).

cheers,
barneyb

---
Barney Boisvert, Senior Development Engineer
AudienceCentral
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
voice : 360.756.8080 x12
fax   : 360.647.5351

www.audiencecentral.com


> -Original Message-
> From: Shawn Grover [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 4:55 PM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: Cons to Fusebox - From the trenches
>
>
> I undertook a project which was partially completed before I
> became involed.
> The project up to that point had been done in a "modified" form of FB2 on
> CF5. I ran into large number of problems simply because the code was not a
> full FB implementation.  Had it been, a number of things would have been
> easier.  However, it was not in the best interests of the project to start
> from scratch and rewrite the code in full FB implementation, or some other
> archeticture.  So, I had to work with what was there, and follow
> the FB'ness
> of the application as closely as possible.
>
> Looking back on the project, I think it was a good example of where FB was
> not well suited.  This was an very complex application (basically
> rewriting
> a desktop app to the web, but in such a way that there was no difference
> between the two - either in functionality or interface).  Some of
> the pages
> did so many different things given so many different conditions - the FB
> approach hindered the process I think.  I'm sure some would argue
> that FB is
> very good at this type of application (sorry I can't give more details -
> NDA), but in my eyes, even had FB2 been implemented correctly, it
> would have
> made debugging and maintenance of the application extremely difficult.
>
> Now that CFMX can support components and most of the object oriented
> approach to programming, I'm finding this to be a much better, and more
> robust solution. If I can figure out how to simulate events
> serverside (but
> within the CFC framework), I wouldn't see a need for any other language on
> the web. On the otherhand, I know FB3 and FB4 have improved significantly,
> and may be as robust as applying OOP concepts.
>
> Shawn
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 5:25 PM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: Cons to Fusebox
>
>
> >While I still don't like it, I do have a better understanding of
> why others
> >might like it, and perhaps would even agree that it may help some people
> >with their development process. Without this thread, I probably wouldn't
> >have that understanding.
>
> I find myself very much agreeing with you, Dave, in that I think
> this thread
> has been very educational. I do wish people would not react so personally
> when someone says they dislike a particular methodology or framework. I
> personally don't think one framework can solve all problems in web
> development, and that each application should be viewed on its own merits
> and the first question that should be asked is: What's the best tool for
> this job?
>
> For example: Let's say you've inherited a ColdFusion application
> that's not
> in Fusebox, and you've got to work on it/enhance it in some way within a
> short time period. Is it better to sit and recode that app to be a Fusebox
> app, or is it better to take the app as is and recode where needed? I've
> never coded in Fusebox (or in ColdFusion, for that matter, though
> I can edit
> articles on both), but I would imagine that there are times when
> you'd want
> to use Fusebox and there are times when time constraints/other
> issues might
> cause you to decide to use some other methodology/framework or your own
> coding guidelines for a more generic ColdFusion app.
>
> Thoughts from people who are actually in the trenches here?
>
> Judith
>
> 
~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4
Subscription: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq

Get the mailserver that powers this list at 
http://www.coolfusion.com

Unsubscribe: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4

RE: Cons to Fusebox

[Barney Boisvert]

Bravo, Judith!

Exactly the proper perspective to have, in my opinion.  Given an choice,
I'll almost invariably choose to go my prefered framework for initial
development.  The exceptions would be if it's both simple and not going to
be around long enough for the maintenance benefits a framework provides to
matter much.

If I take over an app that's not in my framework of choice, I'm certainly
not going to rewrite it from scratch to use that framework.  That's just
foolish.  However, as I make changes, I do incorporate what elements I can
from my framework into the changes I make, with the hope that at some point
in the future, enough of those elements will be present that tying it all
together into a full implementation of the framework will be trvial enough
to justify the "wasted" time.

I've been doing this very thing with an app I inherited March 2002.  It was
about 60,000 lines of code, with a lot (probably 6-8,000 lines) of that
being duplicated, rather than abstracted into a common include.  It's now
about 70,000 lines (because of enhancements), with very little code
duplication.  As it stands, there are about 10 separate fuseboxes that
comprise the entire app.  97 or 98% of it is using fuseactions, with 12-15%
of them using a single monolithic include, rather than a series of atomic
fuses.  If I wanted to, I could probably sit down and convert the whole
thing to a single cohesive FB3 application in 10 or 15 hours.  It still
wouldn't be fully up to snuff (those big fuseactions, missing fusedocs,
etc.), but it'd technically be an FB3 application.

At some point in the near future I'll probably make that final conversion
(after our current release cycle concludes), but even with 10 separate
fuseboxes, it's enormously easier to find my way around the codebase and
remove the seemingly random cross-dependancies which plagued me like nothing
else when I first took over.  This is undoubtedly an atypical scenario, but
it's a success that's almost entirely because of the flexibility and
standardization that my framework of choice (which happens to be Fusebox)
provided to me.  There's certainly no reason that I had to use Fusebox to
get where I've gotten, it just the one I prefer.

cheers,
barneyb

---
Barney Boisvert, Senior Development Engineer
AudienceCentral
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
voice : 360.756.8080 x12
fax   : 360.647.5351

www.audiencecentral.com


> -Original Message-
> From: Judith Dinowitz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 4:25 PM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: Cons to Fusebox
>
>
> >While I still don't like it, I do have a better understanding of
> why others
> >might like it, and perhaps would even agree that it may help some people
> >with their development process. Without this thread, I probably wouldn't
> >have that understanding.
>
> I find myself very much agreeing with you, Dave, in that I think
> this thread has been very educational. I do wish people would not
> react so personally when someone says they dislike a particular
> methodology or framework. I personally don't think one framework
> can solve all problems in web development, and that each
> application should be viewed on its own merits and the first
> question that should be asked is: What's the best tool for this job?
>
> For example: Let's say you've inherited a ColdFusion application
> that's not in Fusebox, and you've got to work on it/enhance it in
> some way within a short time period. Is it better to sit and
> recode that app to be a Fusebox app, or is it better to take the
> app as is and recode where needed? I've never coded in Fusebox
> (or in ColdFusion, for that matter, though I can edit articles on
> both), but I would imagine that there are times when you'd want
> to use Fusebox and there are times when time constraints/other
> issues might cause you to decide to use some other
> methodology/framework or your own coding guidelines for a more
> generic ColdFusion app.
>
> Thoughts from people who are actually in the trenches here?
>
> Judith
> 
~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4
Subscription: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq

Get the mailserver that powers this list at 
http://www.coolfusion.com

Unsubscribe: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4

Re: Fusebox list

[Michael Smith]

I am interested in how many people are interested in an email based 
Fusebox list. There is a way to combine the forums and an email list via 
a Fusetalk module. Please email me off list if you are interested in this.
- Michael Smith, TeraTech, Inc http://www.teratech.com/

Michael Wilson wrote:

>Hi,
>
>I complained when the list was shut down :). The traffic on the forums
>is very slow and I find that "unofficial" newsgroups and mailing lists
>are providing more discussion. I vote we bring back HoF Fusebox, if only
>for those members who wish to discuss it casually. There are a number of
>individuals who do not like dealing with forums that will contribute and
>benefit.
>
>Best regards, 
>Michael Wilson
>
>-Original Message-
>From: Calvin Ward [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
>Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2003 8:46 PM
>To: CF-Talk
>Subject: Re: Fusebox list
>
>There seems to be a lot of interest in FB again on CF-Talk and I 
>was wondering if people thought that it would be a good idea to 
>re-open the HoF FB list?
>
>
>
~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4
Subscription: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq

Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in 
ColdFusion and related topics. 
http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.cfm

Unsubscribe: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4

Cons to Fusebox - From the trenches

[Shawn Grover]

I undertook a project which was partially completed before I became involed.
The project up to that point had been done in a "modified" form of FB2 on
CF5. I ran into large number of problems simply because the code was not a
full FB implementation.  Had it been, a number of things would have been
easier.  However, it was not in the best interests of the project to start
from scratch and rewrite the code in full FB implementation, or some other
archeticture.  So, I had to work with what was there, and follow the FB'ness
of the application as closely as possible.  

Looking back on the project, I think it was a good example of where FB was
not well suited.  This was an very complex application (basically rewriting
a desktop app to the web, but in such a way that there was no difference
between the two - either in functionality or interface).  Some of the pages
did so many different things given so many different conditions - the FB
approach hindered the process I think.  I'm sure some would argue that FB is
very good at this type of application (sorry I can't give more details -
NDA), but in my eyes, even had FB2 been implemented correctly, it would have
made debugging and maintenance of the application extremely difficult.

Now that CFMX can support components and most of the object oriented
approach to programming, I'm finding this to be a much better, and more
robust solution. If I can figure out how to simulate events serverside (but
within the CFC framework), I wouldn't see a need for any other language on
the web. On the otherhand, I know FB3 and FB4 have improved significantly,
and may be as robust as applying OOP concepts.

Shawn

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 5:25 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Cons to Fusebox


>While I still don't like it, I do have a better understanding of why others
>might like it, and perhaps would even agree that it may help some people
>with their development process. Without this thread, I probably wouldn't
>have that understanding.

I find myself very much agreeing with you, Dave, in that I think this thread
has been very educational. I do wish people would not react so personally
when someone says they dislike a particular methodology or framework. I
personally don't think one framework can solve all problems in web
development, and that each application should be viewed on its own merits
and the first question that should be asked is: What's the best tool for
this job?

For example: Let's say you've inherited a ColdFusion application that's not
in Fusebox, and you've got to work on it/enhance it in some way within a
short time period. Is it better to sit and recode that app to be a Fusebox
app, or is it better to take the app as is and recode where needed? I've
never coded in Fusebox (or in ColdFusion, for that matter, though I can edit
articles on both), but I would imagine that there are times when you'd want
to use Fusebox and there are times when time constraints/other issues might
cause you to decide to use some other methodology/framework or your own
coding guidelines for a more generic ColdFusion app.

Thoughts from people who are actually in the trenches here?

Judith

~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4
Subscription: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq

Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more 
resources for the community. 
http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm

Unsubscribe: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4

RE: URLs and abstraction (was: RE: Cons to Fusebox)

[Barney Boisvert]

Oh, it's definitely an administrative hassle, but that's the job of the
developer, make things easier on what are invariably idiot users.  ;)

Most of my apps are also very constrained on their flow, but I've written a
couple where this kind of abstraction was essential.  One of them, in
particular greatly benefited from it.  Subdomains (usually a better choise
in my opinion) were out for some reason, so we had to do directory paths.
Did a complete fuseboxing of the app without much in the way of visible
changes (as a precursor to a substantial refactoring) and it was installed
and running for a week before anyone noticed that the URLs were all
different.  Once it was fuseboxed, we were able to move stuff all around
without changing many of the URLs from the initial fuseboxing, which was
very nice.  Those that did change were again protected by the extra URL
abstraction for another URL-indifferent upgrade.  There were major interface
changes, but the access points were still the same from the user
perspective.

barneyb

---
Barney Boisvert, Senior Development Engineer
AudienceCentral
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
voice : 360.756.8080 x12
fax   : 360.647.5351

www.audiencecentral.com


> -Original Message-
> From: Dave Watts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 4:14 PM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: RE: URLs and abstraction (was: RE: Cons to Fusebox)
>
>
> > One is for administration and maintenance, and one is for
> > usabilty.
> >
> > Is www.macromedia.com/software/coldfusion hard to remember?
> > No, but it might change to
> > www.macromedia.com/software/servers/coldfusion next week.
> > www.macromedia.com/go/coldfusion, on the other hand, will
> > NEVER change, and gives MM the ability to muck with their
> > URLs as they need to.
> >  That level of abstraction should be used for all application
> > that intend for people to jump into the middle, regardless
> > of what their URLs actually look like. If you have controlled
> > access (a login form) then it's probably irrelevant, since
> > people will have to start at the homepage, but for anything
> > else, it's a really good idea, especially content-heavy sites.
>
> That's a good argument, I suppose. I don't run into this very often; most
> everything I get to work on is more of an application with a highly
> structured path, or if it's a content-heavy site, it's using a CMS anyway.
> Also, two levels of abstraction in this case require additional
> setup/migration steps, so that if an application is put in a new
> environment, someone has to remember to create the redirects,
> unless they're
> done in CF rather than in the web server configuration.
>
> Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
> http://www.figleaf.com/
> voice: (202) 797-5496
> fax: (202) 797-5444
>
> 
~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4
Subscription: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq

Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more 
resources for the community. 
http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm

Unsubscribe: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4

Cons to Fusebox

[Judith Dinowitz]

>While I still don't like it, I do have a better understanding of why others
>might like it, and perhaps would even agree that it may help some people
>with their development process. Without this thread, I probably wouldn't
>have that understanding.

I find myself very much agreeing with you, Dave, in that I think this thread has been 
very educational. I do wish people would not react so personally when someone says 
they dislike a particular methodology or framework. I personally don't think one 
framework can solve all problems in web development, and that each application should 
be viewed on its own merits and the first question that should be asked is: What's the 
best tool for this job?

For example: Let's say you've inherited a ColdFusion application that's not in 
Fusebox, and you've got to work on it/enhance it in some way within a short time 
period. Is it better to sit and recode that app to be a Fusebox app, or is it better 
to take the app as is and recode where needed? I've never coded in Fusebox (or in 
ColdFusion, for that matter, though I can edit articles on both), but I would imagine 
that there are times when you'd want to use Fusebox and there are times when time 
constraints/other issues might cause you to decide to use some other 
methodology/framework or your own coding guidelines for a more generic ColdFusion app.

Thoughts from people who are actually in the trenches here?

Judith
~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4
Subscription: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq

This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for 
dependable ColdFusion Hosting.
http://www.cfhosting.com

Unsubscribe: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4

RE: RE: Cons to Fusebox

[Shawn Grover]

Very true, as we both well know.  However, if the requirement gathering is
done, then the proper planning, the system you've built can normally handle
these situations - regardless of what framework/architecture/methodology
you've chosen.

Shawn

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 4:05 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: RE: Cons to Fusebox


> But if you've done the requirements gathering
> beforehand (I'll assume you normally do Barney - this is simply for
> discussion puposes), then you would have planned for X Y and Z 
> from the
> start, before any code was written.

As anyone who gathers requirements can attest to, getting every single
requirement up front is impossible.


~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4
Subscription: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq

Get the mailserver that powers this list at 
http://www.coolfusion.com

Unsubscribe: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4

Re: Cons to Fusebox

[ksuh]

Everyone enjoys discussing with Dave because he's so even keeled.  Makes it so much 
easier to discuss a topic.

- Original Message -
From: Brian Kotek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Friday, July 18, 2003 5:12 pm
Subject: Cons to Fusebox

> Dave, I must admit that this is the nicest and most well-formed 
> post I've seen from you on this thread.  Honestly I don't mean to 
> seem like I'm "calling you out" when I support people asking for 
> sample code from you.  It's just hard for me to accept arguments 
> from people who say there is a better way, but then won't 
> demonstrate it.  I mean, I could say the best methodology is the 
> "build the best application" methodology.  There are no repeatable 
> steps to this methodology, no way to document it in a way that 
> someone else can use.  But when you use it and you do it right, 
> whooeee the results are amazing!
> 
> >> I'm not going to get involved much further in this thread 
> >> because just about everything has been said.  
> >
> >I think you're already involved as deeply as possible.
> 
> Actually I'm serious.  I'm about to bail out just out of 
> exhaustion...have you seen how many posts I've written?  ;-)  
> (that emoticon WAS meant to be humorous)
> 
> >And in that case, your participation was certainly a good thing. 
> I would
> >strongly recommend that people take a look at anything they think 
> might help
> >them be better developers, with the caveat that they shouldn't 
> believe>everything anyone says, and judge for themselves.
> 
> This is what I mean, thank you for that and I must admit that, in 
> some ways, I have found it interesting, if not occasionally 
> frustrating, to read your thoughts as well.
> 
> >Of course, that's just my anecdotal experience, and yours may differ.
> 
> Yes, mine does.  But that's OK.
> 
> Anyway, sorry for the occasional heat...I can be a passionate guy.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Brian
> 
~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4
Subscription: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq

Get the mailserver that powers this list at 
http://www.coolfusion.com

Unsubscribe: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4

Re: (Admin) Criticism vs. antagonism

[Bryan Stevenson]

Ahhhso you mean act like civilized human beingsneat concept ;-)

Bryan Stevenson B.Comm.
VP & Director of E-Commerce Development
Electric Edge Systems Group Inc.
t. 250.920.8830
e. [EMAIL PROTECTED]

-
Macromedia Associate Partner
www.macromedia.com
-
Vancouver Island ColdFusion Users Group
Founder & Director
www.cfug-vancouverisland.com
- Original Message -
From: "Michael Dinowitz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 3:51 PM
Subject: (Admin) Criticism vs. antagonism


> We're all people of strong opinions. We all have different ways of
> expressing those opinions. Sometimes it is hard for people to see the
> differece between being critical of a practice or object and being
> antagonistic. For that reason, I request that when your saying how much
you
> love, hate, or feeel repulsed by something, please use some form of
emoticon
> or in some other way denote the target of your feelings.
> For example, Hal's a friend and I respect him. If/When I express dislike
for
> something in fusebox, it is not against him but against a practice of
> coding. He understands that and we're never hunting each other with sharp
> knives. I'm just hoping others will be able to discuss, debate and even
> trash THINGS and not each other.
> Thanks
> p.s. try to keep things on CF-Talk technical. It's what the list is here
> for.
> Thanks again.
>
> 
~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4
Subscription: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq

Get the mailserver that powers this list at 
http://www.coolfusion.com

Unsubscribe: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4

Cons to Fusebox

[Brian Kotek]

Dave, I must admit that this is the nicest and most well-formed post I've seen from 
you on this thread.  Honestly I don't mean to seem like I'm "calling you out" when I 
support people asking for sample code from you.  It's just hard for me to accept 
arguments from people who say there is a better way, but then won't demonstrate it.  I 
mean, I could say the best methodology is the "build the best application" 
methodology.  There are no repeatable steps to this methodology, no way to document it 
in a way that someone else can use.  But when you use it and you do it right, whooeee 
the results are amazing!

>> I'm not going to get involved much further in this thread 
>> because just about everything has been said.  
>
>I think you're already involved as deeply as possible.

Actually I'm serious.  I'm about to bail out just out of exhaustion...have you seen 
how many posts I've written?  ;-)  (that emoticon WAS meant to be humorous)

>And in that case, your participation was certainly a good thing. I would
>strongly recommend that people take a look at anything they think might help
>them be better developers, with the caveat that they shouldn't believe
>everything anyone says, and judge for themselves.

This is what I mean, thank you for that and I must admit that, in some ways, I have 
found it interesting, if not occasionally frustrating, to read your thoughts as well.

>Of course, that's just my anecdotal experience, and yours may differ.

Yes, mine does.  But that's OK.

Anyway, sorry for the occasional heat...I can be a passionate guy.

Regards,

Brian
~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4
Subscription: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq

This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for 
dependable ColdFusion Hosting.
http://www.cfhosting.com

Unsubscribe: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4

Re: RE: Cons to Fusebox

[ksuh]

I think it's time from a group hug.  Come on over Matt! :)

- Original Message -
From: Dave Watts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Friday, July 18, 2003 5:02 pm
Subject: RE: Cons to Fusebox

> > I'm not going to get involved much further in this thread 
> > because just about everything has been said.  
> 
> I think you're already involved as deeply as possible.
> 
> > Folks who don't like Fusebox still don't like it.  
> 
> While I still don't like it, I do have a better understanding of 
> why others
> might like it, and perhaps would even agree that it may help some 
> peoplewith their development process. Without this thread, I 
> probably wouldn't
> have that understanding.
> 
> > Folks that like Fusebox still like it. Folks who don't 
> > know about Fusebox, or haven't looked at it lately, might 
> > have reason to investigate it further. And it is to those 
> > people, not the detractors or the evangalists, that my 
> > effort has truly been directed.
> 
> And in that case, your participation was certainly a good thing. I 
> wouldstrongly recommend that people take a look at anything they 
> think might help
> them be better developers, with the caveat that they shouldn't believe
> everything anyone says, and judge for themselves.
> 
> > Part of the answer is that Fusebox just works.
> 
> Seriously, how do you measure that?
> 
> > But the majority of folks using it clearly are not having 
> > failures; they are having successes.
> 
> Perhaps. I doubt that either of us have access to useful 
> statistics on that
> point. But let's say that you're right about this. In that case, 
> are they
> successful because of Fusebox? Or are they successful because 
> they're the
> kind of people more likely to think about how their application is
> structured? Or are they successful because any rigid framework is 
> betterthan no rigid framework? You may not think these questions 
> are important,
> but I do. In my experience, the successful projects I've seen 
> (Fusebox and
> non-Fusebox) tended to be successful in my estimation because the 
> people on
> those projects were more thoughtful about them, before they 
> started writing
> code.
> 
> > But the real benefit to having a huge, and ever growing, base 
> > of Fusebox developers, is the speed at which these developers 
> > can understand, maintain, and contribute to existing Fusebox 
> > applications.  The more people who use it, the more 
> > widespread the standard becomes and the more likely 
> > development projects are to adopt it.  It's a symbiotic 
> > relationship; a cycle.  While some may claim that new 
> > developers can come into an existing project and instantly 
> > pick up whatever custom framework or architecture is used, I 
> > believe that in reality this happens extremely rarely.  I 
> > think everyone will agree that just because ColdFusion is an 
> > easy language to understand does not necessarily mean that 
> > all ColdFusion applications are easy to understand.
> 
> Again, in my experience, I've run into two things which make me 
> doubt this.
> First, I've seen plenty of competent developers who were easily 
> able to
> figure out what's going on in a current project, without it using 
> Fusebox or
> any other framework as formal. Second, I've seen plenty of Fusebox 
> codewhere no one (including other experienced Fusebox developers 
> on the same
> project) could make heads or tails out of it.
> 
> Of course, that's just my anecdotal experience, and yours may differ.
> 
> Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
> http://www.figleaf.com/
> voice: (202) 797-5496
> fax: (202) 797-5444
> 
> 
~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4
Subscription: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq

This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for 
dependable ColdFusion Hosting.
http://www.cfhosting.com

Unsubscribe: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4

RE: Cons to Fusebox

[Barney Boisvert]

Yes, I meant differently.  I left out the entire fact-finding and
prototyping, assuming that everyone does it via whatever means they deem
appropriate, and all are reasonably successful.  That process is a separate
discussion altogether.

I agree with your final paragraph completely.  Meeting the spec is the
foremost concern.  However, you stated in your second paragragh that "FB may
make it easy for your to backtrack and add Y and Z afterwards."  I've never
seen a project that didn't evolve and grow over time (excepting the ones
that were stillborn).  It doesn't matter how well you do the initial
development, 6 months or a year down the road, things will need to change.
If they don't, either no one uses the app, or the
planners/architects/developers were friggin' omnicient.

cheers,
barneyb

---
Barney Boisvert, Senior Development Engineer
AudienceCentral
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
voice : 360.756.8080 x12
fax   : 360.647.5351

www.audiencecentral.com


> -Original Message-
> From: Shawn Grover [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 2:59 PM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: RE: Cons to Fusebox
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Barney Boisvert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 3:21 PM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: RE: Cons to Fusebox
>
> >If I were to start a new project tomorrow, I could either grab
> Fusebox (or
> >Struts, or whatever) and start architecting and coding, or I could start
> >building a framework, and refine it and test it, and then start
> architecting
> >and coding, once the framework is complete.  Fusebox4 has been months in
> >development; Struts 1.1 was much longer than that, and both have
> both been
> >years from the initial get-go to now.
>
> I'm going to take this statement at face value for a moment, even though I
> suspect you mean differently.  So, what I'm hearing is that your
> client says
> they want X, and you begin coding X immediately.  But I do not see in you
> statement where the requirements gathering and planning process has taken
> place to determine if the client really wants X, or maybe X and Y and Z.
>
> If this is the case, then yes, FB may make it easy for you to
> backtrack and
> add Y and Z afterwards.  But if you've done the requirements gathering
> beforehand (I'll assume you normally do Barney - this is simply for
> discussion puposes), then you would have planned for X Y and Z from the
> start, before any code was written.  In which case, FB still
> doesn't really
> buy you anything that simply following good practices would.
> Yes, it makes
> things easier in some ways, however, so does Object Oriented Programming,
> and so does Struts, or any other methodology - even some home grown ones.
>
> As near as I can tell from this discussion, it comes down to a matter of
> coding style.  If you prefer the FB "style" of coding, then do it.  If you
> prefer a custom "style" of programming, then do it.  There is no
> "right" way
> to do the code - other than making the application do what it's
> supposed to.
>
> My thoughts, not yours...
>
> Shawn
>
> 
~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4
Subscription: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq

Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more 
resources for the community. 
http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm

Unsubscribe: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4

RE: Cons to Fusebox

[Stacy Young]

I didn't mean to spark controversy, I was actually just curious as to
how Dave would approach any given app...but as he pointed out
afterwards...I don't think many folks make "example apps" of their own
customized frameworks hehe ;-)

As for FB...I've used variations of it since xfb days...and over the
past year I've been absorbed into RIA with Flash/J2EE development so I'm
a little out of the loop in the FB realm.

As for mach-ii, I liked what I've seen so far...my initial response is
that using this pre-built machinery is "icky" but I think I can get over
my ego to try it out...hell, Ben's a smart cookie, I'm sure there's some
good stuff in there to learn. ;)

As for the more experienced folks on this list, I find Sean has the best
attitude in that he approaches everything openly even if he doesn't like
the initial vibe. Others, jump into these types of conversations just
for the opportunity to belittle other people IMO. To each his own I
guess...lol
But if ya don't have something constructive to say then why not pipe it?
If you're gonna challenge something then offer an
alternative...otherwise all your doing is a disservice to list folks
climbing the ranks in the development world trying to figure out which
is the best road to take...

Cheers all,

Stace


-Original Message-
From: Brian Kotek [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 5:57 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Cons to Fusebox

I was just giving Stace something to do while he waits for the small
sample app he asked about, Dave.

>> Dave, clearly we disagree on a fundamental level on many 
>> topics. I don't know you, but I can tell you are an 
>> intelligent person (maybe minus the sarcasm), so clearly you 
>> must have reasons for not liking Fusebox. All I can do is 
>> disagree. I tried to do it before, but now I'll make it more 
>> decisive: I'm bowing out of this discussion. I really don't 
>> like getting into exchanges like this, and it could go on for 
>> days, and I feel that the point (to get folks to examine 
>> Fusebox as an approach with many benefits) has been made.  
>> Honestly, I have better things to do.
>> 
>> I've said my piece. Fusebox is there and ready for open 
>> consideration by anyone who has the interest in looking at 
>> it. I'll leave it to the individual reader to make their own 
>> comparisons between your "common sense" methodology (with all 
>> the detailed and helpful techniques you provided along with 
>> it) and Fusebox.
>>
>> ...
>>
>> Stace, while we wait for Dave's example apps and 
>> documentation of his development approach, I thought I'd 
>> let you know that lots of examples and framework code is 
>> available at www.fusebox.org for anyone to look at and try 
>> out.
>>
>> ;-)
>
>"And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but
>considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?"
>
>I find it amusing that people think the use of an emoticon lets them
say
>whatever they like without reproach. Maybe you should check your own
sarcasm
>before pointing out mine. I think that my criticisms of Fusebox have
been
>written clearly enough that you can understand them if you have a basic
>grasp of English. That doesn't mean that you have to agree with them,
of
>course. 
>
>But it does appear that you do not, in fact, have better things to do.
>
>Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
>http://www.figleaf.com/
>voice: (202) 797-5496
>fax: (202) 797-5444
>

~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4
Subscription: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq

This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for 
dependable ColdFusion Hosting.
http://www.cfhosting.com

Unsubscribe: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4

RE: URLs and abstraction (was: RE: Cons to Fusebox)

[Dave Watts]

> One is for administration and maintenance, and one is for 
> usabilty.
> 
> Is www.macromedia.com/software/coldfusion hard to remember?  
> No, but it might change to 
> www.macromedia.com/software/servers/coldfusion next week.
> www.macromedia.com/go/coldfusion, on the other hand, will 
> NEVER change, and gives MM the ability to muck with their 
> URLs as they need to. 
>  That level of abstraction should be used for all application 
> that intend for people to jump into the middle, regardless 
> of what their URLs actually look like. If you have controlled 
> access (a login form) then it's probably irrelevant, since 
> people will have to start at the homepage, but for anything 
> else, it's a really good idea, especially content-heavy sites.

That's a good argument, I suppose. I don't run into this very often; most
everything I get to work on is more of an application with a highly
structured path, or if it's a content-heavy site, it's using a CMS anyway.
Also, two levels of abstraction in this case require additional
setup/migration steps, so that if an application is put in a new
environment, someone has to remember to create the redirects, unless they're
done in CF rather than in the web server configuration.

Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
http://www.figleaf.com/
voice: (202) 797-5496
fax: (202) 797-5444

~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4
Subscription: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq

This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for 
dependable ColdFusion Hosting.
http://www.cfhosting.com

Unsubscribe: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4

Cons to Fusebox

[Brian Kotek]

Sorry Stace, looks like no example is forthcoming.

>> I was just giving Stace something to do while he waits for 
>> the small sample app he asked about, Dave.
>
>Ah, I see. At least now, you're omitting the emoticon.
>
>If I say that no particular structure is needed solely to organize your CF
>code, why would you expect me to provide one? Why would I have a sample
>application to demonstrate this?
>
>Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
>http://www.figleaf.com/
>voice: (202) 797-5496
>fax: (202) 797-5444
>
~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4
Subscription: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq

This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for 
dependable ColdFusion Hosting.
http://www.cfhosting.com

Unsubscribe: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4

RE: Cons to Fusebox

[Dave Watts]

> I'm not going to get involved much further in this thread 
> because just about everything has been said.  

I think you're already involved as deeply as possible.

> Folks who don't like Fusebox still don't like it.  

While I still don't like it, I do have a better understanding of why others
might like it, and perhaps would even agree that it may help some people
with their development process. Without this thread, I probably wouldn't
have that understanding.

> Folks that like Fusebox still like it. Folks who don't 
> know about Fusebox, or haven't looked at it lately, might 
> have reason to investigate it further. And it is to those 
> people, not the detractors or the evangalists, that my 
> effort has truly been directed.

And in that case, your participation was certainly a good thing. I would
strongly recommend that people take a look at anything they think might help
them be better developers, with the caveat that they shouldn't believe
everything anyone says, and judge for themselves.

> Part of the answer is that Fusebox just works.

Seriously, how do you measure that?

> But the majority of folks using it clearly are not having 
> failures; they are having successes.

Perhaps. I doubt that either of us have access to useful statistics on that
point. But let's say that you're right about this. In that case, are they
successful because of Fusebox? Or are they successful because they're the
kind of people more likely to think about how their application is
structured? Or are they successful because any rigid framework is better
than no rigid framework? You may not think these questions are important,
but I do. In my experience, the successful projects I've seen (Fusebox and
non-Fusebox) tended to be successful in my estimation because the people on
those projects were more thoughtful about them, before they started writing
code.

> But the real benefit to having a huge, and ever growing, base 
> of Fusebox developers, is the speed at which these developers 
> can understand, maintain, and contribute to existing Fusebox 
> applications.  The more people who use it, the more 
> widespread the standard becomes and the more likely 
> development projects are to adopt it.  It's a symbiotic 
> relationship; a cycle.  While some may claim that new 
> developers can come into an existing project and instantly 
> pick up whatever custom framework or architecture is used, I 
> believe that in reality this happens extremely rarely.  I 
> think everyone will agree that just because ColdFusion is an 
> easy language to understand does not necessarily mean that 
> all ColdFusion applications are easy to understand.

Again, in my experience, I've run into two things which make me doubt this.
First, I've seen plenty of competent developers who were easily able to
figure out what's going on in a current project, without it using Fusebox or
any other framework as formal. Second, I've seen plenty of Fusebox code
where no one (including other experienced Fusebox developers on the same
project) could make heads or tails out of it.

Of course, that's just my anecdotal experience, and yours may differ.

Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
http://www.figleaf.com/
voice: (202) 797-5496
fax: (202) 797-5444

~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4
Subscription: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq

Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more 
resources for the community. 
http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm

Unsubscribe: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4

(Admin) Criticism vs. antagonism

[Michael Dinowitz]

We're all people of strong opinions. We all have different ways of
expressing those opinions. Sometimes it is hard for people to see the
differece between being critical of a practice or object and being
antagonistic. For that reason, I request that when your saying how much you
love, hate, or feeel repulsed by something, please use some form of emoticon
or in some other way denote the target of your feelings.
For example, Hal's a friend and I respect him. If/When I express dislike for
something in fusebox, it is not against him but against a practice of
coding. He understands that and we're never hunting each other with sharp
knives. I'm just hoping others will be able to discuss, debate and even
trash THINGS and not each other.
Thanks
p.s. try to keep things on CF-Talk technical. It's what the list is here
for.
Thanks again.

~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4
Subscription: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq

Get the mailserver that powers this list at 
http://www.coolfusion.com

Unsubscribe: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4

Re: Cons to Fusebox

[ksuh]

> But regarding the quote about 17,000 people, I'll say this.  As 
> with anything, looking at ONLY the number of people doing 
> something is a poor gauge of the worth of that thing.  However, 
> the fact that far, far more people use Fusebox than any other 
> ColdFusion methodology DOES indeed carry meaning.  Why is this?  
> What is it about Fusebox that makes it the most successful 
> development framework among ColdFusion developers?

I'd actually say the most successful framework in CF, and every other web development 
language, is the page-centric model.

~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4
Subscription: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq

Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in 
ColdFusion and related topics. 
http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.cfm

Unsubscribe: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4

RE: 100% CPU on CF5 - but patch has already applied!

[Dave Watts]

> It's not a coding issue. There wasn't any code running.  
> This happens on startup.

No, the management service doesn't have anything to do with code. I know you
asked for ways to fix the problem, but unless you're actually using the
service, I'd just recommend that you turn it off. Perhaps you've enabled a
server probe? I think that's handled by the management service, but don't
recall for sure.

Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
http://www.figleaf.com/
voice: (202) 797-5496
fax: (202) 797-5444

~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4
Subscription: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq

This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for 
dependable ColdFusion Hosting.
http://www.cfhosting.com

Unsubscribe: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4

Cons to Fusebox

[Brian Kotek]

I'm not going to get involved much further in this thread because just about 
everything has been said.  Folks who don't like Fusebox still don't like it.  Folks 
that like Fusebox still like it.  Folks who don't know about Fusebox, or haven't 
looked at it lately, might have reason to investigate it further.  And it is to those 
people, not the detractors or the evangalists, that my effort has truly been directed.

But regarding the quote about 17,000 people, I'll say this.  As with anything, looking 
at ONLY the number of people doing something is a poor gauge of the worth of that 
thing.  However, the fact that far, far more people use Fusebox than any other 
ColdFusion methodology DOES indeed carry meaning.  Why is this?  What is it about 
Fusebox that makes it the most successful development framework among ColdFusion 
developers?

Part of the answer is that Fusebox just works.  It greatly assists one in creating a 
successful project.  Yes, in the wrong hands, Fusebox can still allow failures.  It is 
not a silver bullet in and of itself.  But the majority of folks using it clearly are 
not having failures; they are having successes.  It would not keep growing and 
improving if it were otherwise.  This is due not only to the framework itself, but the 
general emphasis on best-practice software engineering that tends to come with the use 
of Fusebox.

But the real benefit to having a huge, and ever growing, base of Fusebox developers, 
is the speed at which these developers can understand, maintain, and contribute to 
existing Fusebox applications.  The more people who use it, the more widespread the 
standard becomes and the more likely development projects are to adopt it.  It's a 
symbiotic relationship; a cycle.  While some may claim that new developers can come 
into an existing project and instantly pick up whatever custom framework or 
architecture is used, I believe that in reality this happens extremely rarely.  I 
think everyone will agree that just because ColdFusion is an easy language to 
understand does not necessarily mean that all ColdFusion applications are easy to 
understand.

So to me, the real point is not that X people use Fusebox, it is that Fusebox is, by 
far, the most successful framework that we ColdFusion developers have.  And the fact 
that the more people who use it, the greater the pool of developers becomes who all 
understand that framework and the greater the pool of projects that use it.  So folks 
can raise their grievances about Fusebox, and it's been challenged for years by 
competing frameworks, but it still goes on.  The community grows every day, and the 
number of projects using it grows as well.  In the end, the only thing that matters is 
whether your project is a success or a failure.  I submit that if you choose to use 
Fusebox, you are greatly increasing your chances of a successful project.

Regards,

Brian


>I don't use Struts or Fusebox, so I don't care. I only point this out  
>to show how silly the whole "17,000 people use Fusebox and you should  
>too" line is.
>
>-Matt
~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4
Subscription: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq

Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in 
ColdFusion and related topics. 
http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.cfm

Unsubscribe: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4

RE: evaluate

[Dave Watts]

> Quick question: Can the Evaluate function evaluate a 
> string as well as a number from a form submission?
> 
> We are using it with numbers in a quantity filed for a 
> shopping cart, but are trying to catch text entries as 
> opposed to numbers.

The short answer is "yes", but what exactly are you trying to do with these
text entries? Evaluate simply takes a string and treats it as if it were an
expression.

Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
http://www.figleaf.com/
voice: (202) 797-5496
fax: (202) 797-5444

~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4
Subscription: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq

This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for 
dependable ColdFusion Hosting.
http://www.cfhosting.com

Unsubscribe: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4

100% CPU on CF5 - but patch has already applied!

[Brian Meloche]

It's not a coding issue.  There wasn't any code running.  This happens on startup.

>Brian,
>
>Don't take this the wrong way.  
>
>Have you checked your cf code and any queries that you are running? I have
>had problems of 100% usage and generally it was due to a coding error or
>very poorly written query.  Since it is developer edition, you should know
>which templates are running when it occurs, so I would start there.
>
>Steve
>
>
>-Original Message-
>From: BRIAN MELOCHE [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 11:35 AM
>To: CF-Talk
>Subject: 100% CPU on CF5 - but patch has already applied!
>
>
>Hello all...
>
>I thought I would post this to the list, since my attempts to solve the
>problem have failed.
>
>I have run into an old problem.  Well, sort of.  I have the developer
>version of CF5 installed on my desktop at work, which is running XP Pro on a
>2.8 GHz P4...  and I am running into the 100% CPU usage caused by
>NTconsoleJava.exe - the ColdFusion Management Repository Server.
>
>But... here's the problem:  I have applied the patches from Macromedia and
>deleted the logs, as according to:
>
>http://www.macromedia.com/support/coldfusion/ts/documents/tn18000.htm
>
>BUT I STILL HAVE THE PROBLEM!!!  It's still doing it!
>
>Other than disabling the service, is there anything I can do to fix the
>problem?  Has anyone run into this problem AFTER applying the patch?  Is
>there another patch that I can't find?
>
>Sincerely,
>
>Brian Meloche,
>4th Floor, ITO - 414
>CSS
>(304) 759-0585 x448
>Macromedia Certified Advanced ColdFusion 5.0 Developer
>130 pounds lost and counting!
>
>
~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4
Subscription: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq

Get the mailserver that powers this list at 
http://www.coolfusion.com

Unsubscribe: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4

Re: Cons to Fusebox

[ksuh]

Very true.  However, Brian's statement really has nothing to do with what Fusebox 
offers.  You decided to reply to it.  I responded by merely saying that the official 
FB do not promote FB in such a manner, lest people get the wrong message from your 
post.

- Original Message -
From: Matt Liotta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Friday, July 18, 2003 4:13 pm
Subject: Re: Cons to Fusebox

> It may not be a big deal to you, but many people are on this list  
> because they care about the opinions of others. In fact, I believe 
> this  
> thread started with one developer asking for the opinions of 
> others. If  
> there weren't any opinions to debate in this thread then there 
> wouldn't  
> be any substance either.
> 
> -Matt
> 
> On Friday, July 18, 2003, at 06:01 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 
> >> I am aware of what you are saying and I do NOT refute it with or
> >> without Brian's comment. However, since my original email never
> >> specified official Fusebox people I don't see the relevance.
> >
> > My point was that although FB users like to spout off, the 
> official FB  
> > people don't like to advocate FB in such a manner.  I mean 
> really, who  
> > cares if Brian said something like that?  It's just his opinion 
> about  
> > a product he uses.  Big deal.
> >
> >>
> >> -Matt
> >>
> >> On Friday, July 18, 2003, at 05:31 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >>
>  From your original messsage:
> >>>
> >>> "Second, I have seen numerous references by Fusebox people both
> >>> in and
> >>> out of this thread in regards to how the sheer number of people
> >>> using Fusebox is an important point. "
> >>>
> >>> I'm saying that the official FB people do not do this.
> >>>
> >>> So, tell me again why Brian's comment somehow refutes this
> >> statement.>
> >>> - Original Message -
> >>> From: Matt Liotta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>> Date: Friday, July 18, 2003 3:25 pm
> >>> Subject: Re: Cons to Fusebox
> >>>
>  I am aware that it is Brian's own opinion and that of anyone else
>  who
>  has made a statement like that. Whether Brian is associated with
>  Fusebox officially is irrelevant. I shared the quote from this
>  thread
>  simply as an example in regards to the statement I made.
> 
>  -Matt
> 
>  On Friday, July 18, 2003, at 05:15 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 
> > That's Brian's own opinion.  He is not a member of the Fusebox
> >> team.>>>
> > On Fusebox.org's web page:
> >
> > "Fusebox is a standard framework and methodology for building
> > web-based applications. Currently used by well over 17762 people
>  from
> > around the world, Fusebox attempts to reduce the 70% software
>  failure
> > rate (download 105KB) by creating a standard framework and
>  methodology
> > for writing web applications and managing web development
> >> projects.">>>
> > Nothing special there.  Certainly doesn't sound like they're
>  tooting
> > their own horn.
> >
> > - Original Message -
> > From: Matt Liotta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Date: Friday, July 18, 2003 3:00 pm
> > Subject: Re: Cons to Fusebox
> >
> >> How about the following quote from this thread for example.
> >>
> >> "When compared to the alternatives (no structure at all,
> >> someone's
> >> personal
> >> best guess at something, or some superior approach that
>  conspicuously>> manages to never actually be revealed) it is the
>  best thing I've
> >> found
> >> so
> >> far.  And about 17,000 other people agree. "
> >>
> >> -Matt
> >>
> >> On Friday, July 18, 2003, at 04:43 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >>
> >>> I don't think the Fusebox people are using that X number 
> to say
> >> that
> >>> because there are so many X people using FB, so should you.
> >> Rather,
> >>> it's there for informational purposes, and to say that, yeah,
> >> people
> >>> are using it.  Maybe not a lot in comparison to some other
> >> framework,
> >>> but the only winner in a comparison like that is the most
> >> popular item
> >>> in it's class.
> >>>
> >>> - Original Message -
> >>> From: Matt Liotta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>> Date: Friday, July 18, 2003 2:34 pm
> >>> Subject: Re: Cons to Fusebox
> >>>
>  See my response to another email along similar lines.
>  However, I'd
>  to
>  respond to your email a little differently.
> 
>  Based on my earlier message it could be said that there 
> is 10
>  times as
>  many Java developers as CF developers, so why would one 
> use CF
>  over
>  Java? There are tons of answers to that question that I think
>  most of
>  us know. In fact, we know these answers so well that we
> >> disregard>> the
>  number of Java developers as irrelevant.
> 
>  Now 

RE: Cons to Fusebox

[Dave Watts]

> Dave, the argument that Fusebox "doesn't solve any real 
> problems" is a very interesting perspective, and one I 
> haven't really heard before. I can't say I agree with it, 
> but I certainly see it's validity. In fact, it's probably
> one of the more valid arguments "against" Fusebox that 
> I've heard, and certainly one that can't be relegated to 
> the "he/she just doesn't know enough about Fusebox" category.

Well, it's certainly possible that I don't know enough about it. I don't
write Fusebox applications from scratch, although I do work on other
people's Fusebox applications very often. I suspect that a lot of my
distaste for Fusebox stems from that.

The problem that I run into, simply stated, is that Fusebox developers spend
too much time organizing their CF code, and not enough time figuring out
what should be in CF and what shouldn't, or what should be done at runtime
and what shouldn't. For example, I can't count the times that I've seen code
like this in Fusebox (and non-Fusebox) applications:


SELECT a bunch of records



... do a bunch of calculations, and/or execute other queries


When I see something like that, I'm inclined to think that the developers
should spend less time learning Fusebox, and more time learning SQL.

> This is a long email, and I've taken way more time than I 
> should have to carefully craft a cohesive response. I've 
> attempted to keep my pro-Fusebox bias out of the picture, 
> with purely objective references to it. I suspect that 
> both "sides" could use this effectively as an argument 
> for themselves, but hopefully intelligence will overcome 
> petty differences, and this will provide a solid description 
> of Fusebox from one who intimately understands it's inner 
> workings, but isn't trying to push it on the world.

I think you've done a very good job with this response, for what that's
worth.

> In any Fusebox app, if you see a file that starts with 
> "dsp_" you instantly know that it has very little logic, if
> any, and outputs something to the client, usually HTML. You 
> might use "d_" prefixes, maybe it's a directory for display
> template, I don't know, so I'd have to learn them if I took 
> over your app. If we're both using Fusebox, that bump, 
> however inconsequential it is, would not exist.

I submit that this bump is inconsequential, and that the bump in moving to
Fusebox may be greater. But I don't think it makes much difference either
way. My experience has been that the CF code itself tends to be easy to
figure out.

> The framework also provides a very raw form of documentation 
> for the application.
> ...
> Now, you can certainly say that the "roadmap" aspect of 
> Fusebox could easily be duplicated with a non-Fusebox 
> framework, or no framework at all. But if there is already 
> a tool that takes care of all the administrative
> bookkeeping in dealing with making that roadmap also the 
> functional driver for your app, why not use it?

That strikes me as something that could be a compelling argument, at least
if you don't already have some documentation process for this already. Do
you find yourself going beyond this "raw form of documentation" anyway,
though?

Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
http://www.figleaf.com/
voice: (202) 797-5496
fax: (202) 797-5444

~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4
Subscription: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq

Get the mailserver that powers this list at 
http://www.coolfusion.com

Unsubscribe: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4

RE: Cons to Fusebox

[Dave Watts]

> Dave, you have been antagonistic since you started commenting 
> on this thread.

I think it's unfortunate that you confuse criticism with antagonism.

> Fusebox will not cease to exist because you don't like it.

I should hope not. Frankly, it doesn't bother me that people use Fusebox, or
that people like it. I wouldn't be surprised if I'd worked with as many
Fusebox applications as you have. When I am asked to fix an application, I
don't ever suggest that they avoid using Fusebox if they're already using it
- and that question actually comes up a lot. You'll notice that not once, in
this thread or others, have I said that people shouldn't use it - things
like this are decisions that people should make for themselves. But, when
asked how I feel about it myself, I reserve the right to answer honestly and
fully. Especially when the thread is called "Cons to Fusebox".

I'm sorry that you feel this is personally directed at you. It isn't. But
you may find it useful to understand that adults can disagree about things,
and provide arguments to justify their positions, without feeling personal
animus. It'll help you get through life.

> It will, however, continue to grow as long as those of us who 
> do use it present its benefits to others.

Well, that's good. Maybe it'll grow into something that I'll like, too. Who
knows? I'm actually interested in the "Mach II" stuff, although I haven't
spent very long looking into it so far.

> And, just because someone smiles when they tell you to kiss 
> their ass, :), doesn't mean they hope you feel better about it.

No, but it does point out that person's own thin skin and hypocrisy. And if
"kiss my ass" is the best argument you can find, well, good luck with that.

Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
http://www.figleaf.com/
voice: (202) 797-5496
fax: (202) 797-5444

~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4
Subscription: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq

This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for 
dependable ColdFusion Hosting.
http://www.cfhosting.com

Unsubscribe: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4

Cons to Fusebox

[Michael Dinowitz]

Please remember to fork threads when the conversation changes. Thank you
~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4
Subscription: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq

This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for 
dependable ColdFusion Hosting.
http://www.cfhosting.com

Unsubscribe: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4

Re: Cons to Fusebox

[Matt Liotta]

It may not be a big deal to you, but many people are on this list  
because they care about the opinions of others. In fact, I believe this  
thread started with one developer asking for the opinions of others. If  
there weren't any opinions to debate in this thread then there wouldn't  
be any substance either.

-Matt

On Friday, July 18, 2003, at 06:01 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

>> I am aware of what you are saying and I do NOT refute it with or
>> without Brian's comment. However, since my original email never
>> specified official Fusebox people I don't see the relevance.
>
> My point was that although FB users like to spout off, the official FB  
> people don't like to advocate FB in such a manner.  I mean really, who  
> cares if Brian said something like that?  It's just his opinion about  
> a product he uses.  Big deal.
>
>>
>> -Matt
>>
>> On Friday, July 18, 2003, at 05:31 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
 From your original messsage:
>>>
>>> "Second, I have seen numerous references by Fusebox people both
>>> in and
>>> out of this thread in regards to how the sheer number of people
>>> using Fusebox is an important point. "
>>>
>>> I'm saying that the official FB people do not do this.
>>>
>>> So, tell me again why Brian's comment somehow refutes this
>> statement.>
>>> - Original Message -
>>> From: Matt Liotta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> Date: Friday, July 18, 2003 3:25 pm
>>> Subject: Re: Cons to Fusebox
>>>
 I am aware that it is Brian's own opinion and that of anyone else
 who
 has made a statement like that. Whether Brian is associated with
 Fusebox officially is irrelevant. I shared the quote from this
 thread
 simply as an example in regards to the statement I made.

 -Matt

 On Friday, July 18, 2003, at 05:15 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> That's Brian's own opinion.  He is not a member of the Fusebox
>> team.>>>
> On Fusebox.org's web page:
>
> "Fusebox is a standard framework and methodology for building
> web-based applications. Currently used by well over 17762 people
 from
> around the world, Fusebox attempts to reduce the 70% software
 failure
> rate (download 105KB) by creating a standard framework and
 methodology
> for writing web applications and managing web development
>> projects.">>>
> Nothing special there.  Certainly doesn't sound like they're
 tooting
> their own horn.
>
> - Original Message -
> From: Matt Liotta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Friday, July 18, 2003 3:00 pm
> Subject: Re: Cons to Fusebox
>
>> How about the following quote from this thread for example.
>>
>> "When compared to the alternatives (no structure at all,
>> someone's
>> personal
>> best guess at something, or some superior approach that
 conspicuously>> manages to never actually be revealed) it is the
 best thing I've
>> found
>> so
>> far.  And about 17,000 other people agree. "
>>
>> -Matt
>>
>> On Friday, July 18, 2003, at 04:43 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>>> I don't think the Fusebox people are using that X number to say
>> that
>>> because there are so many X people using FB, so should you.
>> Rather,
>>> it's there for informational purposes, and to say that, yeah,
>> people
>>> are using it.  Maybe not a lot in comparison to some other
>> framework,
>>> but the only winner in a comparison like that is the most
>> popular item
>>> in it's class.
>>>
>>> - Original Message -
>>> From: Matt Liotta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> Date: Friday, July 18, 2003 2:34 pm
>>> Subject: Re: Cons to Fusebox
>>>
 See my response to another email along similar lines.
 However, I'd
 to
 respond to your email a little differently.

 Based on my earlier message it could be said that there is 10
 times as
 many Java developers as CF developers, so why would one use CF
 over
 Java? There are tons of answers to that question that I think
 most of
 us know. In fact, we know these answers so well that we
>> disregard>> the
 number of Java developers as irrelevant.

 Now then... with so many more people using Struts as
>> opposed to
 Fusebox
 (both of which can be used in Java and CF), why would one use
 Fusebox
 over Struts? The answers to that question aren't as
>> important as
 realizing that most CF developers don't know them. Thus,
>> whenever>> someone tries to sell Fusebox based on the number
>> of people using
 it
 the obvious question remains, why not use something with a
 greater
 following?

 I don't use Struts or Fusebox, so I don't care. I only
>> point this
 out
 to show how silly the whole "17,000 peop

RE: Cons to Fusebox

[Dave Watts]

> I was just giving Stace something to do while he waits for 
> the small sample app he asked about, Dave.

Ah, I see. At least now, you're omitting the emoticon.

If I say that no particular structure is needed solely to organize your CF
code, why would you expect me to provide one? Why would I have a sample
application to demonstrate this?

Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
http://www.figleaf.com/
voice: (202) 797-5496
fax: (202) 797-5444

~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4
Subscription: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq

This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for 
dependable ColdFusion Hosting.
http://www.cfhosting.com

Unsubscribe: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4

RE: Cons to Fusebox

[Stacy Young]

Matt's here, party's over. LOL ;)


-Original Message-
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 2:00 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Cons to Fusebox

I saw this thread mentioned on Sean's blog and I was thinking about  
rejoining this list before reading his blog, so here I am. I'm not  
interested in trying to rehash much of the debate since I am late to  
this thread, but I feel like it is important to make at least a couple  
of points.

First, I largely agree with Dave's position in this debate, but I don't

agree with him in regards to his application of common sense in lieu of

a framework. I think frameworks are extremely valuable and can make an  
enormous difference in the success of web applications especially where

more than 3 people on working on them. Of course, picking the wrong  
framework for an application can lead to all sorts of problems, so the  
notion of one framework being the correct one in every case should be  
abandoned.

Second, I have seen numerous references by Fusebox people both in and  
out of this thread in regards to how the sheer number of people using  
Fusebox is an important point. I like to put that into perspective a  
bit. According to Fusebox.org, there are 17756 using Fusebox. Not sure  
where that number comes from, but let's apply that to the number of CF  
developers, which is supposed to be about 300,000. That would mean  
about 6% of CF developers are using Fusebox. Now then, let's assume  
that 6% of Java developers are using Struts. Since there is supposed to

be about 3,000,000 Java developers that would mean there would be  
180,000 Java developers using Struts.

There are a lot of reasons why one would use Struts over Fusebox and  
vice versa, but if sheer numbers matter to people than Struts is the  
way to go since it is used by a lot more people. BTW, if you don't buy  
the above numbers; take a look at the Amazon.com sales rankings for the

10+ struts books vs. the Fusebox books.

-Matt

On Friday, July 18, 2003, at 12:27 PM, Erik Yowell wrote:

>>
>> Trade offs. Everything is a trade off. Sometimes the quick,
>> unstructured 'hack' is the right solution...
>>
>
> This for me (being a small shop) is why I've extensively adopted a
> framework like Fusebox. Most of my projects are not going to become an
> Amazon.com anytime soon, while this doesn't mean I should write sloppy
> code - it does allow the flexibility of allowing a bit of a processing
> overhead in lieu of manageability and the ability to bring in external
> talent to easily assist me in changes (if needed) by providing a good
> set of standards and the Fusebox docs. I don't have to spend precious
> time educating another developer on the intricacies of a custom
> framework.
>
> Despite what organizations like Rational think (in the sense that
there
> is no such thing as RAD development) - I mean, come on now, how many
> developers out there have had the "I needed it yesterday" conversation
> with a client? I find having the ability to quickly find and make
> changes to medium sized projects, forced structuring of code and
> application processes to be a boon.
>
> Erik Yowell
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.shortfusemedia.com
>
>
> 

~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4
Subscription: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq

Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more 
resources for the community. 
http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm

Unsubscribe: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4

Re: RE: Cons to Fusebox

[ksuh]

> But if you've done the requirements gathering
> beforehand (I'll assume you normally do Barney - this is simply for
> discussion puposes), then you would have planned for X Y and Z 
> from the
> start, before any code was written.

As anyone who gathers requirements can attest to, getting every single requirement up 
front is impossible.

~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4
Subscription: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq

Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in 
ColdFusion and related topics. 
http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.cfm

Unsubscribe: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4

Re: Cons to Fusebox

[ksuh]

> I am aware of what you are saying and I do NOT refute it with or  
> without Brian's comment. However, since my original email never  
> specified official Fusebox people I don't see the relevance.

My point was that although FB users like to spout off, the official FB people don't 
like to advocate FB in such a manner.  I mean really, who cares if Brian said 
something like that?  It's just his opinion about a product he uses.  Big deal.

> 
> -Matt
> 
> On Friday, July 18, 2003, at 05:31 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 
> >> From your original messsage:
> >
> > "Second, I have seen numerous references by Fusebox people both
> > in and
> > out of this thread in regards to how the sheer number of people
> > using Fusebox is an important point. "
> >
> > I'm saying that the official FB people do not do this.
> >
> > So, tell me again why Brian's comment somehow refutes this 
> statement.>
> > - Original Message -
> > From: Matt Liotta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Date: Friday, July 18, 2003 3:25 pm
> > Subject: Re: Cons to Fusebox
> >
> >> I am aware that it is Brian's own opinion and that of anyone else
> >> who
> >> has made a statement like that. Whether Brian is associated with
> >> Fusebox officially is irrelevant. I shared the quote from this
> >> thread
> >> simply as an example in regards to the statement I made.
> >>
> >> -Matt
> >>
> >> On Friday, July 18, 2003, at 05:15 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >>
> >>> That's Brian's own opinion.  He is not a member of the Fusebox 
> team.>>>
> >>> On Fusebox.org's web page:
> >>>
> >>> "Fusebox is a standard framework and methodology for building
> >>> web-based applications. Currently used by well over 17762 people
> >> from
> >>> around the world, Fusebox attempts to reduce the 70% software
> >> failure
> >>> rate (download 105KB) by creating a standard framework and
> >> methodology
> >>> for writing web applications and managing web development 
> projects.">>>
> >>> Nothing special there.  Certainly doesn't sound like they're
> >> tooting
> >>> their own horn.
> >>>
> >>> - Original Message -
> >>> From: Matt Liotta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>> Date: Friday, July 18, 2003 3:00 pm
> >>> Subject: Re: Cons to Fusebox
> >>>
>  How about the following quote from this thread for example.
> 
>  "When compared to the alternatives (no structure at all, 
> someone's
>  personal
>  best guess at something, or some superior approach that
> >> conspicuously>> manages to never actually be revealed) it is the
> >> best thing I've
>  found
>  so
>  far.  And about 17,000 other people agree. "
> 
>  -Matt
> 
>  On Friday, July 18, 2003, at 04:43 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 
> > I don't think the Fusebox people are using that X number to say
>  that
> > because there are so many X people using FB, so should you.
>  Rather,
> > it's there for informational purposes, and to say that, yeah,
>  people
> > are using it.  Maybe not a lot in comparison to some other
>  framework,
> > but the only winner in a comparison like that is the most
>  popular item
> > in it's class.
> >
> > - Original Message -
> > From: Matt Liotta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Date: Friday, July 18, 2003 2:34 pm
> > Subject: Re: Cons to Fusebox
> >
> >> See my response to another email along similar lines.
> >> However, I'd
> >> to
> >> respond to your email a little differently.
> >>
> >> Based on my earlier message it could be said that there is 10
> >> times as
> >> many Java developers as CF developers, so why would one use CF
> >> over
> >> Java? There are tons of answers to that question that I think
> >> most of
> >> us know. In fact, we know these answers so well that we 
> disregard>> the
> >> number of Java developers as irrelevant.
> >>
> >> Now then... with so many more people using Struts as 
> opposed to
> >> Fusebox
> >> (both of which can be used in Java and CF), why would one use
> >> Fusebox
> >> over Struts? The answers to that question aren't as 
> important as
> >> realizing that most CF developers don't know them. Thus, 
> whenever>> someone tries to sell Fusebox based on the number 
> of people using
> >> it
> >> the obvious question remains, why not use something with a
> >> greater
> >> following?
> >>
> >> I don't use Struts or Fusebox, so I don't care. I only 
> point this
> >> out
> >> to show how silly the whole "17,000 people use Fusebox and you
> >> should
> >> too" line is.
> >>
> >> -Matt
> >>
> >> On Friday, July 18, 2003, at 03:29 PM, Sandy Clark wrote:
> >>
> >>> Why are you comparing the numbers using a Java Framework 
> to the
> >> numbers> using a ColdFusion framework? Isn't that like 
> comparing>> Appes to
> >>> Oranges? It
> >>> has no meaning.  Does this mean

RE: Cons to Fusebox

[Michael Wilson]

Hi,

Dave, you have been antagonistic since you started commenting on this
thread. Fusebox will not cease to exist because you don't like it. It will,
however, continue to grow as long as those of us who do use it present its
benefits to others. Along with that growth will come improvements and
enhancements that will make Fusebox even more useful and practical. I think
your criticisms of Fusebox have been weak; hell Matt's observations made
more sense. I have heard this same song and dance since Fusebox first came
to be, but it is still rolling right along. It's not "better" it's not
"bigger" it's just free, easy, and works. And, just because someone smiles
when they tell you to kiss their ass, :), doesn't mean they hope you feel
better about it.

Best regards,
Michael Wilson 

-Original Message-
From: Dave Watts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 5:24 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Cons to Fusebox

"And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but
considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?"

I find it amusing that people think the use of an emoticon lets them say
whatever they like without reproach. Maybe you should check your own sarcasm
before pointing out mine. I think that my criticisms of Fusebox have been
written clearly enough that you can understand them if you have a basic
grasp of English. That doesn't mean that you have to agree with them, of
course. 

But it does appear that you do not, in fact, have better things to do.


~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4
Subscription: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq

This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for 
dependable ColdFusion Hosting.
http://www.cfhosting.com

Unsubscribe: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4

Multiple occurrences of CF_TwoSelectsRelated

[Jeff Lucido]

Hello all:

I am not having a happing programming day. I am pretty frustrated with a
problem I am having and I am now crying uncle. Specifically, I have  an
array of elements where I am looping through the recordset and inputting
data for each item in the array. Part of this input process is using two
related select boxes. Here is where the problem starts,
CF_TwoSelectsRelated works well when it is called only once per form
using the same recordset (in fact, I can get it to work perfectly when
displaying just one). 

I cannot, however, get it to work with multiple occurrences of the same
recordset in the same form. One thing I did try was to tweak the
generated JS code to create a unique function name and call to the
function per instance, hopefully creating a unique function and
association for the particular occurrence. I really thought this would
work, but instead you can make a selection in the first select box and
the second one is not affected. I am not getting any JS errors that I
know of so I am stumped.

I searched Google and I found a posting on CF-Talk with the same
problem, but the solution posted three years ago pulls up a 404.
Hopefully someone else out there has run into the same problem and could
provide a little insight.

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks!
-JSLucido


~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4
Subscription: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq

Get the mailserver that powers this list at 
http://www.coolfusion.com

Unsubscribe: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4

RE: Cons to Fusebox

[Shawn Grover]

-Original Message-
From: Barney Boisvert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 3:21 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Cons to Fusebox

>If I were to start a new project tomorrow, I could either grab Fusebox (or
>Struts, or whatever) and start architecting and coding, or I could start
>building a framework, and refine it and test it, and then start
architecting
>and coding, once the framework is complete.  Fusebox4 has been months in
>development; Struts 1.1 was much longer than that, and both have both been
>years from the initial get-go to now.

I'm going to take this statement at face value for a moment, even though I
suspect you mean differently.  So, what I'm hearing is that your client says
they want X, and you begin coding X immediately.  But I do not see in you
statement where the requirements gathering and planning process has taken
place to determine if the client really wants X, or maybe X and Y and Z.

If this is the case, then yes, FB may make it easy for you to backtrack and
add Y and Z afterwards.  But if you've done the requirements gathering
beforehand (I'll assume you normally do Barney - this is simply for
discussion puposes), then you would have planned for X Y and Z from the
start, before any code was written.  In which case, FB still doesn't really
buy you anything that simply following good practices would.  Yes, it makes
things easier in some ways, however, so does Object Oriented Programming,
and so does Struts, or any other methodology - even some home grown ones.

As near as I can tell from this discussion, it comes down to a matter of
coding style.  If you prefer the FB "style" of coding, then do it.  If you
prefer a custom "style" of programming, then do it.  There is no "right" way
to do the code - other than making the application do what it's supposed to.

My thoughts, not yours...

Shawn

~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4
Subscription: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq

Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more 
resources for the community. 
http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm

Unsubscribe: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4

deleting duplicates in table

[cf-talk]

Hi list, with the following script (below) I am
checking duplicate eMails and I delete
them after checking them.
This script runs ages, when you have more
than a couple of thousand eMails in
your database.
Is there any advice how to tune this up ?
Or is there another script I could use for doing this ?
Uwe
 -

SELECT * FROM blabla
ORDER BY email ASC












  







delete from siebel
where id = #DuplikateSuchen.id#








~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4
Subscription: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq

Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more 
resources for the community. 
http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm

Unsubscribe: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4

Cons to Fusebox

[Brian Kotek]

I was just giving Stace something to do while he waits for the small sample app he 
asked about, Dave.

>> Dave, clearly we disagree on a fundamental level on many 
>> topics. I don't know you, but I can tell you are an 
>> intelligent person (maybe minus the sarcasm), so clearly you 
>> must have reasons for not liking Fusebox. All I can do is 
>> disagree. I tried to do it before, but now I'll make it more 
>> decisive: I'm bowing out of this discussion. I really don't 
>> like getting into exchanges like this, and it could go on for 
>> days, and I feel that the point (to get folks to examine 
>> Fusebox as an approach with many benefits) has been made.  
>> Honestly, I have better things to do.
>> 
>> I've said my piece. Fusebox is there and ready for open 
>> consideration by anyone who has the interest in looking at 
>> it. I'll leave it to the individual reader to make their own 
>> comparisons between your "common sense" methodology (with all 
>> the detailed and helpful techniques you provided along with 
>> it) and Fusebox.
>>
>> ...
>>
>> Stace, while we wait for Dave's example apps and 
>> documentation of his development approach, I thought I'd 
>> let you know that lots of examples and framework code is 
>> available at www.fusebox.org for anyone to look at and try 
>> out.
>>
>> ;-)
>
>"And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but
>considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?"
>
>I find it amusing that people think the use of an emoticon lets them say
>whatever they like without reproach. Maybe you should check your own sarcasm
>before pointing out mine. I think that my criticisms of Fusebox have been
>written clearly enough that you can understand them if you have a basic
>grasp of English. That doesn't mean that you have to agree with them, of
>course. 
>
>But it does appear that you do not, in fact, have better things to do.
>
>Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
>http://www.figleaf.com/
>voice: (202) 797-5496
>fax: (202) 797-5444
>
~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4
Subscription: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq

Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in 
ColdFusion and related topics. 
http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.cfm

Unsubscribe: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4

Re: Cons to Fusebox

[Matt Liotta]

I understand why it is desirable to have an existing framework as  
opposed to creating a new one. There is always a build or buy decision  
that needs to be made when it comes to new development and I trust  
everyone has a good handle on how to evaluate these decisions for  
themselves. In my previous life as a developer, the various  
organizations I worked for and applications I helped create benefitted  
greatly from a custom framework even when you include the cost in time  
and money it took to develop the framework. Further, I can say that in  
all cases, new hires were able to come up-to-speed immediately. Even  
though I no longer work at any of these companies my frameworks are  
still in place and the employees are developing quite fine without the  
original architect. I don't think that has anything to do with the  
framework; it's more a function of CFML being so easy to understand.

-Matt

On Friday, July 18, 2003, at 05:21 PM, Barney Boisvert wrote:

> And there, Matt, is the crux of the issue.  There is a fairly  
> substantial
> benefit to using a generic framework, even if it's not exactly what  
> would be
> considered 'ideal'.  First, you don't have to spend the time  
> developing it,
> and second, you won't have to train every single person that comes in  
> the
> door to work on your project.
>
> If I were to start a new project tomorrow, I could either grab Fusebox  
> (or
> Struts, or whatever) and start architecting and coding, or I could  
> start
> building a framework, and refine it and test it, and then start  
> architecting
> and coding, once the framework is complete.  Fusebox4 has been months  
> in
> development; Struts 1.1 was much longer than that, and both have both  
> been
> years from the initial get-go to now.
>
> I can get the majority of the functionality I want immediately by  
> using an
> existing framework, and start the actual app (what I get paid for), or  
> I can
> spend a long time making a custom framework that provides all the
> functionality I want first (and not get paid for it), and then  
> develope the
> app.  I'd have to make one hell of an improvement over existing  
> frameworks
> for rolling my own to be an economical decision, even over the course  
> of
> numerous applications developed with it.
>
> barneyb
>
> ---
> Barney Boisvert, Senior Development Engineer
> AudienceCentral
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> voice : 360.756.8080 x12
> fax   : 360.647.5351
>
> www.audiencecentral.com
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 2:03 PM
>> To: CF-Talk
>> Subject: Re: Cons to Fusebox
>>
>>
>> I could have sworn the other I saw a demo of Struts running on CF and
>> for that matter I seem to recall Fusebox on J2EE as well. Anyway... on
>> to the rest of your email.
>>
>> Why do you want a framework from me that will work better than Fusebox
>> for your needs? Wouldn't you be the best person to create such a
>> framework. A better question is, why haven't you created a better
>> framework for your needs?
>>
>> -Matt
>>
>> On Friday, July 18, 2003, at 04:46 PM, Sandy Clark wrote:
>>
>>> Again, I don't think anyone can say they will use Fusebox in a Java
>>> World or
>>> Struts in a CF5 world. There is no comparison.  If you are talking
>>> numbers
>>> as a way to go by your own supposition, there are 10 times the number
>>> of
>>> Java Developers.  You can't compare the frameworks like that.  There
>>> is no
>>> commonality in terms of ability to use them in the areas for which
>>> they are
>>> not designed.
>>>
>>> So I don't think that comparing Struts to Fusebox is a reasonable
>>> comparison.  Its like saying there are more people in the world who
>>> drive
>>> cars rather than boats, cars sell better, therefore regardless of
>>> whether
>>> you are on land or water, you should be in a car.
>>>
>>> Cars are for land, boats are for water.
>>> Struts is for Java, Fusebox is for CFML.
>>>
>>> Personally I don't care how many people use something. To me that
>>> isn't a
>>> valid argument.  What I am concerned about is what will work for me
>>> and the
>>> people who work with me in developing web applications quickly and
>>> cleanly.
>>>
>>>
>>> I have yet to be introduced to a framework that will work in both CF5
>>> or
>>> CFMX that will help me structure my code and not have to worry about
>>> all the
>>> housekeeping, other than Fusebox.  I've looked at BlackBox, I've
>>> looked at
>>> SmartObjects.  Neither of them come close.
>>>
>>> If you have a framework that will work better in ColdFusion, then
>>> please
>>> introduce it to me. I have always said that I will be more then happy
>>> to
>>> drop Fusebox if something better comes along.  I've always said it's  
>>> a
>>> framework not a religion.
>>>
> There are a lot of reasons why one would use Struts over Fusebox  
> and
> vice versa, but if sheer numbers matter to people than Struts is  
> the
> way to go s

Re: Cons to Fusebox

[Matt Liotta]

I am aware of what you are saying and I do NOT refute it with or  
without Brian's comment. However, since my original email never  
specified official Fusebox people I don't see the relevance.

-Matt

On Friday, July 18, 2003, at 05:31 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

>> From your original messsage:
>
> "Second, I have seen numerous references by Fusebox people both
> in and
> out of this thread in regards to how the sheer number of people
> using Fusebox is an important point. "
>
> I'm saying that the official FB people do not do this.
>
> So, tell me again why Brian's comment somehow refutes this statement.
>
> - Original Message -
> From: Matt Liotta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Friday, July 18, 2003 3:25 pm
> Subject: Re: Cons to Fusebox
>
>> I am aware that it is Brian's own opinion and that of anyone else
>> who
>> has made a statement like that. Whether Brian is associated with
>> Fusebox officially is irrelevant. I shared the quote from this
>> thread
>> simply as an example in regards to the statement I made.
>>
>> -Matt
>>
>> On Friday, July 18, 2003, at 05:15 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>>> That's Brian's own opinion.  He is not a member of the Fusebox team.
>>>
>>> On Fusebox.org's web page:
>>>
>>> "Fusebox is a standard framework and methodology for building
>>> web-based applications. Currently used by well over 17762 people
>> from
>>> around the world, Fusebox attempts to reduce the 70% software
>> failure
>>> rate (download 105KB) by creating a standard framework and
>> methodology
>>> for writing web applications and managing web development projects."
>>>
>>> Nothing special there.  Certainly doesn't sound like they're
>> tooting
>>> their own horn.
>>>
>>> - Original Message -
>>> From: Matt Liotta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> Date: Friday, July 18, 2003 3:00 pm
>>> Subject: Re: Cons to Fusebox
>>>
 How about the following quote from this thread for example.

 "When compared to the alternatives (no structure at all, someone's

 personal
 best guess at something, or some superior approach that
>> conspicuously>> manages to never actually be revealed) it is the
>> best thing I've
 found
 so
 far.  And about 17,000 other people agree. "

 -Matt

 On Friday, July 18, 2003, at 04:43 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> I don't think the Fusebox people are using that X number to say
 that
> because there are so many X people using FB, so should you.
 Rather,
> it's there for informational purposes, and to say that, yeah,
 people
> are using it.  Maybe not a lot in comparison to some other
 framework,
> but the only winner in a comparison like that is the most
 popular item
> in it's class.
>
> - Original Message -
> From: Matt Liotta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Friday, July 18, 2003 2:34 pm
> Subject: Re: Cons to Fusebox
>
>> See my response to another email along similar lines.
>> However, I'd
>> to
>> respond to your email a little differently.
>>
>> Based on my earlier message it could be said that there is 10
>> times as
>> many Java developers as CF developers, so why would one use CF
>> over
>> Java? There are tons of answers to that question that I think
>> most of
>> us know. In fact, we know these answers so well that we disregard
>> the
>> number of Java developers as irrelevant.
>>
>> Now then... with so many more people using Struts as opposed to
>> Fusebox
>> (both of which can be used in Java and CF), why would one use
>> Fusebox
>> over Struts? The answers to that question aren't as important as
>> realizing that most CF developers don't know them. Thus, whenever
>> someone tries to sell Fusebox based on the number of people using
>> it
>> the obvious question remains, why not use something with a
>> greater
>> following?
>>
>> I don't use Struts or Fusebox, so I don't care. I only point this
>> out
>> to show how silly the whole "17,000 people use Fusebox and you
>> should
>> too" line is.
>>
>> -Matt
>>
>> On Friday, July 18, 2003, at 03:29 PM, Sandy Clark wrote:
>>
>>> Why are you comparing the numbers using a Java Framework to the
>> numbers> using a ColdFusion framework? Isn't that like comparing
>> Appes to
>>> Oranges? It
>>> has no meaning.  Does this mean that because there are more Java
>>> Programmers, we should all just stop using CF and move to Java??
>>>
>>> Struts is the most popular framework for Java.  It doesn't mean
>> that
>>> Struts
>>> can be used in C++ Development, nor does it mean that it can be
>> used in
>>> ColdFusion development (I did read the article on DevNet), but
>> not
>>> everyone
>>> is doing cross Java/CFMX development.
>>>
>>> Instead compare Apples to Apples.  Compare Struts to something

RE: Cons to Fusebox

[Mosh Teitelbaum]

Out of curiosity, Jamie, is this typical of all of your projects or just
this particular one?

Additionally, how do you (and all other appropriate developers on your
project(s)) respond to changes in requirement that necessitate a change in
display, logic, and data?  Are the changes made by one person or three?  If
three, have you found it difficult to coordinate everyone's time and effort?

--
Mosh Teitelbaum
evoch, LLC
Tel: (301) 942-5378
Fax: (301) 933-3651
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
WWW: http://www.evoch.com/


> -Original Message-
> From: Jamie Jackson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 4:35 PM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: Re: Cons to Fusebox
>
>
> On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 16:36:20 -0400, in cf-talk you wrote:
>
> >In your experience,
> >how often do you have one developer working on the form and
> another working
> >on the action file?
>
> Answer: As I type.
>
> I know the form, and he knows what he's doing with XML storage and
> retrieval. Do I feel like learning his XML model, etc.? Do I care
> about developer number 3's DB model? No, she just feeds me result
> sets. I don't have time to know the entire app right now...
> eventually, but not right now, I've got work to do.
>
> This project would be a mess without Fusebox. Yes, I've run into
> problems using FB3 (FB4 promises remedies for my issues), but I
> haven't regretted FB for this project.
>
> Jamie
> 
~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4
Subscription: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq

Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in 
ColdFusion and related topics. 
http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.cfm

Unsubscribe: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4

Re: Cons to Fusebox

[ksuh]

>From your original messsage:

"Second, I have seen numerous references by Fusebox people both
in and
out of this thread in regards to how the sheer number of people
using Fusebox is an important point. "

I'm saying that the official FB people do not do this.

So, tell me again why Brian's comment somehow refutes this statement.

- Original Message -
From: Matt Liotta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Friday, July 18, 2003 3:25 pm
Subject: Re: Cons to Fusebox

> I am aware that it is Brian's own opinion and that of anyone else 
> who  
> has made a statement like that. Whether Brian is associated with  
> Fusebox officially is irrelevant. I shared the quote from this 
> thread  
> simply as an example in regards to the statement I made.
> 
> -Matt
> 
> On Friday, July 18, 2003, at 05:15 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 
> > That's Brian's own opinion.  He is not a member of the Fusebox team.
> >
> > On Fusebox.org's web page:
> >
> > "Fusebox is a standard framework and methodology for building  
> > web-based applications. Currently used by well over 17762 people 
> from  
> > around the world, Fusebox attempts to reduce the 70% software 
> failure  
> > rate (download 105KB) by creating a standard framework and 
> methodology  
> > for writing web applications and managing web development projects."
> >
> > Nothing special there.  Certainly doesn't sound like they're 
> tooting  
> > their own horn.
> >
> > - Original Message -
> > From: Matt Liotta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Date: Friday, July 18, 2003 3:00 pm
> > Subject: Re: Cons to Fusebox
> >
> >> How about the following quote from this thread for example.
> >>
> >> "When compared to the alternatives (no structure at all, someone's
> >>
> >> personal
> >> best guess at something, or some superior approach that 
> conspicuously>> manages to never actually be revealed) it is the 
> best thing I've
> >> found
> >> so
> >> far.  And about 17,000 other people agree. "
> >>
> >> -Matt
> >>
> >> On Friday, July 18, 2003, at 04:43 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >>
> >>> I don't think the Fusebox people are using that X number to say
> >> that
> >>> because there are so many X people using FB, so should you.
> >> Rather,
> >>> it's there for informational purposes, and to say that, yeah,
> >> people
> >>> are using it.  Maybe not a lot in comparison to some other
> >> framework,
> >>> but the only winner in a comparison like that is the most
> >> popular item
> >>> in it's class.
> >>>
> >>> - Original Message -
> >>> From: Matt Liotta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>> Date: Friday, July 18, 2003 2:34 pm
> >>> Subject: Re: Cons to Fusebox
> >>>
>  See my response to another email along similar lines. 
> However, I'd
>  to
>  respond to your email a little differently.
> 
>  Based on my earlier message it could be said that there is 10
>  times as
>  many Java developers as CF developers, so why would one use CF
>  over
>  Java? There are tons of answers to that question that I think 
> most of
>  us know. In fact, we know these answers so well that we disregard
>  the
>  number of Java developers as irrelevant.
> 
>  Now then... with so many more people using Struts as opposed to
>  Fusebox
>  (both of which can be used in Java and CF), why would one use
>  Fusebox
>  over Struts? The answers to that question aren't as important as
>  realizing that most CF developers don't know them. Thus, whenever
>  someone tries to sell Fusebox based on the number of people using
>  it
>  the obvious question remains, why not use something with a 
> greater
>  following?
> 
>  I don't use Struts or Fusebox, so I don't care. I only point this
>  out
>  to show how silly the whole "17,000 people use Fusebox and you
>  should
>  too" line is.
> 
>  -Matt
> 
>  On Friday, July 18, 2003, at 03:29 PM, Sandy Clark wrote:
> 
> > Why are you comparing the numbers using a Java Framework to the
>  numbers> using a ColdFusion framework? Isn't that like comparing
>  Appes to
> > Oranges? It
> > has no meaning.  Does this mean that because there are more Java
> > Programmers, we should all just stop using CF and move to Java??
> >
> > Struts is the most popular framework for Java.  It doesn't mean
>  that
> > Struts
> > can be used in C++ Development, nor does it mean that it can be
>  used in
> > ColdFusion development (I did read the article on DevNet), but
>  not
> > everyone
> > is doing cross Java/CFMX development.
> >
> > Instead compare Apples to Apples.  Compare Struts to something
>  like
> > JADE
> > (IBM) or Barracuda.  Compare Fusebox to things like BlackBox or
> > SmartObjects.
> >
> > Those are true comparisons I would like to see.
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: 

Re: RE: CFC Session Facade Pattern

[ksuh]

The design pattern is not dependent upon sessioning.  If it's the case that their 
example uses persistent EJBs, it's just coincidence.  

What it seems like you're asking is what is the impact of using session CFCs 
(regardless of design patterns).  Well, you'd have to try it and find out.

- Original Message -
From: Erik Yowell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Friday, July 18, 2003 3:17 pm
Subject: RE: CFC Session Facade Pattern

> Perhaps I should clarify - looking at the JavaDocs and structure of
> their pattern it seems as though you one could have say a ShoppingCart
> object stored session state that implements multiple desperate
> components based upon whatever. Say this one CFC is also extending a
> CartItem component. Okay - so now we have a memory resident CFC,
> extending another with multiple methods invoking a whole 'nother 
> set of
> components (other facades, etc). Is it just me or does that sound 
> like a
> whole lot of weight to store in a session? Not knowing how session
> persistent CFCs are handled in CFMX memory (or how well) makes me
> curious. Pardon my ignorance on OOP patterns, learning something new
> every day. 
> 
> Erik Yowell
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.shortfusemedia.com
> 
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 2:03 PM
> > To: CF-Talk
> > Subject: Re: CFC Session Facade Pattern
> > 
> > Erm, they're not talking about session persistence.  They're talking
> about
> > taking a complex set of steps (a "session") and simplifying it.
> > 
> > - Original Message -
> > From: Erik Yowell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Date: Friday, July 18, 2003 2:55 pm
> > Subject: CFC Session Facade Pattern
> > 
> > > I’ve got a couple of CFC-type questions to whoever would be
> interested
> > > in answering, or has had experience in this realm:
> > >
> > > Regarding something like a Session Façade pattern ( as illustrated
> > >
> http://technet.oracle.com/sample_code/tech/java/j2ee/vsm12/vsmpatterns.h
> > > tml#SessionFacade ), would the same state-level advantages hold
> > > true for
> > > session persistent CFCs in CFMX? What kind of overhead would one
> > > expectimplementing a CFC Façade of such degree in CFMX? Is it even
> > > worthinvestigating? Perhaps I’m being lazy and not experimenting
> > > myself, just
> > > thought I’d toss this out the list to see if others have had
> > > positive/negative experiences, being as CFCs are so new in
> > > implementation.
> > >
> > > Erik Yowell
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > http://www.shortfusemedia.com
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > 
> 
~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4
Subscription: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq

Get the mailserver that powers this list at 
http://www.coolfusion.com

Unsubscribe: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4

Re: Cons to Fusebox

[Matt Liotta]

I am aware that it is Brian's own opinion and that of anyone else who  
has made a statement like that. Whether Brian is associated with  
Fusebox officially is irrelevant. I shared the quote from this thread  
simply as an example in regards to the statement I made.

-Matt

On Friday, July 18, 2003, at 05:15 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> That's Brian's own opinion.  He is not a member of the Fusebox team.
>
> On Fusebox.org's web page:
>
> "Fusebox is a standard framework and methodology for building  
> web-based applications. Currently used by well over 17762 people from  
> around the world, Fusebox attempts to reduce the 70% software failure  
> rate (download 105KB) by creating a standard framework and methodology  
> for writing web applications and managing web development projects."
>
> Nothing special there.  Certainly doesn't sound like they're tooting  
> their own horn.
>
> - Original Message -
> From: Matt Liotta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Friday, July 18, 2003 3:00 pm
> Subject: Re: Cons to Fusebox
>
>> How about the following quote from this thread for example.
>>
>> "When compared to the alternatives (no structure at all, someone's
>>
>> personal
>> best guess at something, or some superior approach that conspicuously
>> manages to never actually be revealed) it is the best thing I've
>> found
>> so
>> far.  And about 17,000 other people agree. "
>>
>> -Matt
>>
>> On Friday, July 18, 2003, at 04:43 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>>> I don't think the Fusebox people are using that X number to say
>> that
>>> because there are so many X people using FB, so should you.
>> Rather,
>>> it's there for informational purposes, and to say that, yeah,
>> people
>>> are using it.  Maybe not a lot in comparison to some other
>> framework,
>>> but the only winner in a comparison like that is the most
>> popular item
>>> in it's class.
>>>
>>> - Original Message -
>>> From: Matt Liotta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> Date: Friday, July 18, 2003 2:34 pm
>>> Subject: Re: Cons to Fusebox
>>>
 See my response to another email along similar lines. However, I'd
 to
 respond to your email a little differently.

 Based on my earlier message it could be said that there is 10
 times as
 many Java developers as CF developers, so why would one use CF
 over
 Java? There are tons of answers to that question that I think most
 of
 us know. In fact, we know these answers so well that we disregard
 the
 number of Java developers as irrelevant.

 Now then... with so many more people using Struts as opposed to
 Fusebox
 (both of which can be used in Java and CF), why would one use
 Fusebox
 over Struts? The answers to that question aren't as important as
 realizing that most CF developers don't know them. Thus, whenever
 someone tries to sell Fusebox based on the number of people using
 it
 the obvious question remains, why not use something with a greater

 following?

 I don't use Struts or Fusebox, so I don't care. I only point this
 out
 to show how silly the whole "17,000 people use Fusebox and you
 should
 too" line is.

 -Matt

 On Friday, July 18, 2003, at 03:29 PM, Sandy Clark wrote:

> Why are you comparing the numbers using a Java Framework to the
 numbers> using a ColdFusion framework? Isn't that like comparing
 Appes to
> Oranges? It
> has no meaning.  Does this mean that because there are more Java
> Programmers, we should all just stop using CF and move to Java??
>
> Struts is the most popular framework for Java.  It doesn't mean
 that
> Struts
> can be used in C++ Development, nor does it mean that it can be
 used in
> ColdFusion development (I did read the article on DevNet), but
 not
> everyone
> is doing cross Java/CFMX development.
>
> Instead compare Apples to Apples.  Compare Struts to something
 like
> JADE
> (IBM) or Barracuda.  Compare Fusebox to things like BlackBox or
> SmartObjects.
>
> Those are true comparisons I would like to see.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 2:00 PM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: Re: Cons to Fusebox
>
>
> I saw this thread mentioned on Sean's blog and I was thinking
>> about>>> rejoining this list before reading his blog, so here I
>> am. I'm not
> interested in trying to rehash much of the debate since I am
 late to
> this thread, but I feel like it is important to make at least a
 couple> of points.
>
> First, I largely agree with Dave's position in this debate, but
 I don't
> agree with him in regards to his application of common sense in
 lieu of
> a framework. I think frameworks are extremely valuable and can
 make an
> enormous difference in the success of web applications
>>

RE: Cons to Fusebox

[Dave Watts]

> Dave, clearly we disagree on a fundamental level on many 
> topics. I don't know you, but I can tell you are an 
> intelligent person (maybe minus the sarcasm), so clearly you 
> must have reasons for not liking Fusebox. All I can do is 
> disagree. I tried to do it before, but now I'll make it more 
> decisive: I'm bowing out of this discussion. I really don't 
> like getting into exchanges like this, and it could go on for 
> days, and I feel that the point (to get folks to examine 
> Fusebox as an approach with many benefits) has been made.  
> Honestly, I have better things to do.
> 
> I've said my piece. Fusebox is there and ready for open 
> consideration by anyone who has the interest in looking at 
> it. I'll leave it to the individual reader to make their own 
> comparisons between your "common sense" methodology (with all 
> the detailed and helpful techniques you provided along with 
> it) and Fusebox.
>
> ...
>
> Stace, while we wait for Dave's example apps and 
> documentation of his development approach, I thought I'd 
> let you know that lots of examples and framework code is 
> available at www.fusebox.org for anyone to look at and try 
> out.
>
> ;-)

"And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but
considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?"

I find it amusing that people think the use of an emoticon lets them say
whatever they like without reproach. Maybe you should check your own sarcasm
before pointing out mine. I think that my criticisms of Fusebox have been
written clearly enough that you can understand them if you have a basic
grasp of English. That doesn't mean that you have to agree with them, of
course. 

But it does appear that you do not, in fact, have better things to do.

Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
http://www.figleaf.com/
voice: (202) 797-5496
fax: (202) 797-5444

~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4
Subscription: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq

Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in 
ColdFusion and related topics. 
http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.cfm

Unsubscribe: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4

RE: Cons to Fusebox

[Sandy Clark]

Since you are starting to misquote me, I think that I will stop posting lest
it degenerate further.  Thanks Matt, I think you made my point abundantly
clear for me.



ML 
"Why do you want a framework from me that will work better than Fusebox  
for your needs? Wouldn't you be the best person to create such a  
framework. A better question is, why haven't you created a better  
framework for your needs?"

SC
"I have yet to be introduced to a framework that will work in both CF5  
 or > CFMX that will help me structure my code and not have to worry about  
 all the housekeeping, other than Fusebox.  I've looked at BlackBox, I've  
 looked at  SmartObjects.  Neither of them come close.

 If you have a framework that will work better in ColdFusion, then  
 please introduce it to me. "

-Original Message-
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 5:03 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Cons to Fusebox


I could have sworn the other I saw a demo of Struts running on CF and  
for that matter I seem to recall Fusebox on J2EE as well. Anyway... on  
to the rest of your email.

Why do you want a framework from me that will work better than Fusebox  
for your needs? Wouldn't you be the best person to create such a  
framework. A better question is, why haven't you created a better  
framework for your needs?

-Matt

On Friday, July 18, 2003, at 04:46 PM, Sandy Clark wrote:

> Again, I don't think anyone can say they will use Fusebox in a Java  
> World or
> Struts in a CF5 world. There is no comparison.  If you are talking  
> numbers
> as a way to go by your own supposition, there are 10 times the number  
> of
> Java Developers.  You can't compare the frameworks like that.  There  
> is no
> commonality in terms of ability to use them in the areas for which  
> they are
> not designed.
>
> So I don't think that comparing Struts to Fusebox is a reasonable
> comparison.  Its like saying there are more people in the world who  
> drive
> cars rather than boats, cars sell better, therefore regardless of  
> whether
> you are on land or water, you should be in a car.
>
> Cars are for land, boats are for water.
> Struts is for Java, Fusebox is for CFML.
>
> Personally I don't care how many people use something. To me that  
> isn't a
> valid argument.  What I am concerned about is what will work for me  
> and the
> people who work with me in developing web applications quickly and  
> cleanly.
>
>
> I have yet to be introduced to a framework that will work in both CF5  
> or
> CFMX that will help me structure my code and not have to worry about  
> all the
> housekeeping, other than Fusebox.  I've looked at BlackBox, I've  
> looked at
> SmartObjects.  Neither of them come close.
>
> If you have a framework that will work better in ColdFusion, then  
> please
> introduce it to me. I have always said that I will be more then happy  
> to
> drop Fusebox if something better comes along.  I've always said it's a
> framework not a religion.
>
>>> There are a lot of reasons why one would use Struts over Fusebox and
>>> vice versa, but if sheer numbers matter to people than Struts is the
>>> way to go since it is used by a lot more people.
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 4:24 PM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: Re: Cons to Fusebox
>
>
> I don't see why comparing different kinds of framework is an issue if
> you limit your comparison to specifics that are shared by both. As I
> pointed out in my first email, there is no one framework that is best
> for all applications, so what the framework is or what it does is
> irrelevant to my point, which was in regards to sheer numbers. And
> since both frameworks have a following it is perfectly acceptable to
> compare that following.
>
> -Matt
>
> On Friday, July 18, 2003, at 03:07 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> Interesting that you are comparing a Java Framework to a ColdFusion
>> framework. Don't you think that is comparing Apples to Oranges?
>>
>> Within the Java World, Struts is by far the most adapted Framework of
>> its kind.  Within the ColdFusion world (and I am not just referring to
>> CFMX here). Fusebox is the most adapted Framework of its kind.
>>
>> So don't compare Fusebox with Struts, compare it to BlackBox and
>> SmartObjects.  Those are the items within the same realm, just as you
>> would compare Struts to Jade rather than comparing Struts to Zope.
>>
>>> I saw this thread mentioned on Sean's blog and I was thinking about
>>> rejoining this list before reading his blog, so here I am. I'm not
>>> interested in trying to rehash much of the debate since I am late to
>>> this thread, but I feel like it is important to make at least a  
>>> couple
>>> of points.
>>>
>>> First, I largely agree with Dave's position in this debate, but I
>>> don't
>>> agree with him in regards to his application of common 

RE: Cons to Fusebox

[Barney Boisvert]

And there, Matt, is the crux of the issue.  There is a fairly substantial
benefit to using a generic framework, even if it's not exactly what would be
considered 'ideal'.  First, you don't have to spend the time developing it,
and second, you won't have to train every single person that comes in the
door to work on your project.

If I were to start a new project tomorrow, I could either grab Fusebox (or
Struts, or whatever) and start architecting and coding, or I could start
building a framework, and refine it and test it, and then start architecting
and coding, once the framework is complete.  Fusebox4 has been months in
development; Struts 1.1 was much longer than that, and both have both been
years from the initial get-go to now.

I can get the majority of the functionality I want immediately by using an
existing framework, and start the actual app (what I get paid for), or I can
spend a long time making a custom framework that provides all the
functionality I want first (and not get paid for it), and then develope the
app.  I'd have to make one hell of an improvement over existing frameworks
for rolling my own to be an economical decision, even over the course of
numerous applications developed with it.

barneyb

---
Barney Boisvert, Senior Development Engineer
AudienceCentral
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
voice : 360.756.8080 x12
fax   : 360.647.5351

www.audiencecentral.com


> -Original Message-
> From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 2:03 PM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: Re: Cons to Fusebox
>
>
> I could have sworn the other I saw a demo of Struts running on CF and
> for that matter I seem to recall Fusebox on J2EE as well. Anyway... on
> to the rest of your email.
>
> Why do you want a framework from me that will work better than Fusebox
> for your needs? Wouldn't you be the best person to create such a
> framework. A better question is, why haven't you created a better
> framework for your needs?
>
> -Matt
>
> On Friday, July 18, 2003, at 04:46 PM, Sandy Clark wrote:
>
> > Again, I don't think anyone can say they will use Fusebox in a Java
> > World or
> > Struts in a CF5 world. There is no comparison.  If you are talking
> > numbers
> > as a way to go by your own supposition, there are 10 times the number
> > of
> > Java Developers.  You can't compare the frameworks like that.  There
> > is no
> > commonality in terms of ability to use them in the areas for which
> > they are
> > not designed.
> >
> > So I don't think that comparing Struts to Fusebox is a reasonable
> > comparison.  Its like saying there are more people in the world who
> > drive
> > cars rather than boats, cars sell better, therefore regardless of
> > whether
> > you are on land or water, you should be in a car.
> >
> > Cars are for land, boats are for water.
> > Struts is for Java, Fusebox is for CFML.
> >
> > Personally I don't care how many people use something. To me that
> > isn't a
> > valid argument.  What I am concerned about is what will work for me
> > and the
> > people who work with me in developing web applications quickly and
> > cleanly.
> >
> >
> > I have yet to be introduced to a framework that will work in both CF5
> > or
> > CFMX that will help me structure my code and not have to worry about
> > all the
> > housekeeping, other than Fusebox.  I've looked at BlackBox, I've
> > looked at
> > SmartObjects.  Neither of them come close.
> >
> > If you have a framework that will work better in ColdFusion, then
> > please
> > introduce it to me. I have always said that I will be more then happy
> > to
> > drop Fusebox if something better comes along.  I've always said it's a
> > framework not a religion.
> >
> >>> There are a lot of reasons why one would use Struts over Fusebox and
> >>> vice versa, but if sheer numbers matter to people than Struts is the
> >>> way to go since it is used by a lot more people.
> >
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 4:24 PM
> > To: CF-Talk
> > Subject: Re: Cons to Fusebox
> >
> >
> > I don't see why comparing different kinds of framework is an issue if
> > you limit your comparison to specifics that are shared by both. As I
> > pointed out in my first email, there is no one framework that is best
> > for all applications, so what the framework is or what it does is
> > irrelevant to my point, which was in regards to sheer numbers. And
> > since both frameworks have a following it is perfectly acceptable to
> > compare that following.
> >
> > -Matt
> >
> > On Friday, July 18, 2003, at 03:07 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> >> Interesting that you are comparing a Java Framework to a ColdFusion
> >> framework. Don't you think that is comparing Apples to Oranges?
> >>
> >> Within the Java World, Struts is by far the most adapted Framework of
> >> its kind.  Within the ColdFusion world (and I am not just referring to
> >> CFMX here). Fusebox is the most adapted

RE: CFC Session Facade Pattern

[Erik Yowell]

Perhaps I should clarify - looking at the JavaDocs and structure of
their pattern it seems as though you one could have say a ShoppingCart
object stored session state that implements multiple desperate
components based upon whatever. Say this one CFC is also extending a
CartItem component. Okay - so now we have a memory resident CFC,
extending another with multiple methods invoking a whole 'nother set of
components (other facades, etc). Is it just me or does that sound like a
whole lot of weight to store in a session? Not knowing how session
persistent CFCs are handled in CFMX memory (or how well) makes me
curious. Pardon my ignorance on OOP patterns, learning something new
every day. 

Erik Yowell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.shortfusemedia.com


> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 2:03 PM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: Re: CFC Session Facade Pattern
> 
> Erm, they're not talking about session persistence.  They're talking
about
> taking a complex set of steps (a "session") and simplifying it.
> 
> - Original Message -
> From: Erik Yowell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Friday, July 18, 2003 2:55 pm
> Subject: CFC Session Facade Pattern
> 
> > I’ve got a couple of CFC-type questions to whoever would be
interested
> > in answering, or has had experience in this realm:
> >
> > Regarding something like a Session Façade pattern ( as illustrated
> >
http://technet.oracle.com/sample_code/tech/java/j2ee/vsm12/vsmpatterns.h
> > tml#SessionFacade ), would the same state-level advantages hold
> > true for
> > session persistent CFCs in CFMX? What kind of overhead would one
> > expectimplementing a CFC Façade of such degree in CFMX? Is it even
> > worthinvestigating? Perhaps I’m being lazy and not experimenting
> > myself, just
> > thought I’d toss this out the list to see if others have had
> > positive/negative experiences, being as CFCs are so new in
> > implementation.
> >
> > Erik Yowell
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > http://www.shortfusemedia.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4
Subscription: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq

Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more 
resources for the community. 
http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm

Unsubscribe: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4

Re: Cons to Fusebox

[ksuh]

That's Brian's own opinion.  He is not a member of the Fusebox team.

On Fusebox.org's web page:

"Fusebox is a standard framework and methodology for building web-based applications. 
Currently used by well over 17762 people from around the world, Fusebox attempts to 
reduce the 70% software failure rate (download 105KB) by creating a standard framework 
and methodology for writing web applications and managing web development projects."

Nothing special there.  Certainly doesn't sound like they're tooting their own horn.

- Original Message -
From: Matt Liotta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Friday, July 18, 2003 3:00 pm
Subject: Re: Cons to Fusebox

> How about the following quote from this thread for example.
> 
> "When compared to the alternatives (no structure at all, someone's 
> 
> personal
> best guess at something, or some superior approach that conspicuously
> manages to never actually be revealed) it is the best thing I've 
> found  
> so
> far.  And about 17,000 other people agree. "
> 
> -Matt
> 
> On Friday, July 18, 2003, at 04:43 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 
> > I don't think the Fusebox people are using that X number to say 
> that  
> > because there are so many X people using FB, so should you.  
> Rather,  
> > it's there for informational purposes, and to say that, yeah, 
> people  
> > are using it.  Maybe not a lot in comparison to some other 
> framework,  
> > but the only winner in a comparison like that is the most 
> popular item  
> > in it's class.
> >
> > - Original Message -
> > From: Matt Liotta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Date: Friday, July 18, 2003 2:34 pm
> > Subject: Re: Cons to Fusebox
> >
> >> See my response to another email along similar lines. However, I'd
> >> to
> >> respond to your email a little differently.
> >>
> >> Based on my earlier message it could be said that there is 10
> >> times as
> >> many Java developers as CF developers, so why would one use CF
> >> over
> >> Java? There are tons of answers to that question that I think most
> >> of
> >> us know. In fact, we know these answers so well that we disregard
> >> the
> >> number of Java developers as irrelevant.
> >>
> >> Now then... with so many more people using Struts as opposed to
> >> Fusebox
> >> (both of which can be used in Java and CF), why would one use
> >> Fusebox
> >> over Struts? The answers to that question aren't as important as
> >> realizing that most CF developers don't know them. Thus, whenever
> >> someone tries to sell Fusebox based on the number of people using
> >> it
> >> the obvious question remains, why not use something with a greater
> >>
> >> following?
> >>
> >> I don't use Struts or Fusebox, so I don't care. I only point this
> >> out
> >> to show how silly the whole "17,000 people use Fusebox and you
> >> should
> >> too" line is.
> >>
> >> -Matt
> >>
> >> On Friday, July 18, 2003, at 03:29 PM, Sandy Clark wrote:
> >>
> >>> Why are you comparing the numbers using a Java Framework to the
> >> numbers> using a ColdFusion framework? Isn't that like comparing
> >> Appes to
> >>> Oranges? It
> >>> has no meaning.  Does this mean that because there are more Java
> >>> Programmers, we should all just stop using CF and move to Java??
> >>>
> >>> Struts is the most popular framework for Java.  It doesn't mean
> >> that
> >>> Struts
> >>> can be used in C++ Development, nor does it mean that it can be
> >> used in
> >>> ColdFusion development (I did read the article on DevNet), but
> >> not
> >>> everyone
> >>> is doing cross Java/CFMX development.
> >>>
> >>> Instead compare Apples to Apples.  Compare Struts to something
> >> like
> >>> JADE
> >>> (IBM) or Barracuda.  Compare Fusebox to things like BlackBox or
> >>> SmartObjects.
> >>>
> >>> Those are true comparisons I would like to see.
> >>>
> >>> -Original Message-
> >>> From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>> Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 2:00 PM
> >>> To: CF-Talk
> >>> Subject: Re: Cons to Fusebox
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I saw this thread mentioned on Sean's blog and I was thinking 
> about>>> rejoining this list before reading his blog, so here I 
> am. I'm not
> >>> interested in trying to rehash much of the debate since I am
> >> late to
> >>> this thread, but I feel like it is important to make at least a
> >> couple> of points.
> >>>
> >>> First, I largely agree with Dave's position in this debate, but
> >> I don't
> >>> agree with him in regards to his application of common sense in
> >> lieu of
> >>> a framework. I think frameworks are extremely valuable and can
> >> make an
> >>> enormous difference in the success of web applications
> >> especially where
> >>> more than 3 people on working on them. Of course, picking the 
> wrong>>> framework for an application can lead to all sorts of 
> problems,>> so the
> >>> notion of one framework being the correct one in every case
> >> should be
> >>> abandoned.
> >>>
> >>> Second, I have seen numerous references by Fusebox people both
> >> in and
> >>> out of 

Re: Macromedia Updates Contribute

[Christian Cantrell]

On Friday, July 18, 2003, at 08:19 AM, Thomas Chiverton wrote:

> Thanks to Chrisian too for his detailed explanation.

Sure thing.  I realize now that I posted one bit of misinformation, 
however.  I said in a previous post that the licensing manager dies as 
soon as it determines the integrity of the license, however I have 
since learned that the licensing manager stays running, but only while 
Contribute is running.  When Contribute quits, the licensing manager 
quits, and when Contribute is uninstalled, so is the licensing manager.

Sorry for the mistake.  Let me know if you have any additional 
questions.

Christian

~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4
Subscription: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq

Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in 
ColdFusion and related topics. 
http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.cfm

Unsubscribe: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4

RE: Cons to Fusebox

[Angel Stewart]

If you wanna have fun,anecdotally or totally ,you should join us on the
CF-Community list.
;-)

Happy Friday!

-Gel


-Original Message-
From: Birgit Pauli-Haack [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

didn't say you did:-)) Anecdotally I am just having fun
B.


~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4
Subscription: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq

This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for 
dependable ColdFusion Hosting.
http://www.cfhosting.com

Unsubscribe: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4

Re: Cons to Fusebox

[Matt Liotta]

I could have sworn the other I saw a demo of Struts running on CF and  
for that matter I seem to recall Fusebox on J2EE as well. Anyway... on  
to the rest of your email.

Why do you want a framework from me that will work better than Fusebox  
for your needs? Wouldn't you be the best person to create such a  
framework. A better question is, why haven't you created a better  
framework for your needs?

-Matt

On Friday, July 18, 2003, at 04:46 PM, Sandy Clark wrote:

> Again, I don't think anyone can say they will use Fusebox in a Java  
> World or
> Struts in a CF5 world. There is no comparison.  If you are talking  
> numbers
> as a way to go by your own supposition, there are 10 times the number  
> of
> Java Developers.  You can't compare the frameworks like that.  There  
> is no
> commonality in terms of ability to use them in the areas for which  
> they are
> not designed.
>
> So I don't think that comparing Struts to Fusebox is a reasonable
> comparison.  Its like saying there are more people in the world who  
> drive
> cars rather than boats, cars sell better, therefore regardless of  
> whether
> you are on land or water, you should be in a car.
>
> Cars are for land, boats are for water.
> Struts is for Java, Fusebox is for CFML.
>
> Personally I don't care how many people use something. To me that  
> isn't a
> valid argument.  What I am concerned about is what will work for me  
> and the
> people who work with me in developing web applications quickly and  
> cleanly.
>
>
> I have yet to be introduced to a framework that will work in both CF5  
> or
> CFMX that will help me structure my code and not have to worry about  
> all the
> housekeeping, other than Fusebox.  I've looked at BlackBox, I've  
> looked at
> SmartObjects.  Neither of them come close.
>
> If you have a framework that will work better in ColdFusion, then  
> please
> introduce it to me. I have always said that I will be more then happy  
> to
> drop Fusebox if something better comes along.  I've always said it's a
> framework not a religion.
>
>>> There are a lot of reasons why one would use Struts over Fusebox and
>>> vice versa, but if sheer numbers matter to people than Struts is the
>>> way to go since it is used by a lot more people.
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 4:24 PM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: Re: Cons to Fusebox
>
>
> I don't see why comparing different kinds of framework is an issue if
> you limit your comparison to specifics that are shared by both. As I
> pointed out in my first email, there is no one framework that is best
> for all applications, so what the framework is or what it does is
> irrelevant to my point, which was in regards to sheer numbers. And
> since both frameworks have a following it is perfectly acceptable to
> compare that following.
>
> -Matt
>
> On Friday, July 18, 2003, at 03:07 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> Interesting that you are comparing a Java Framework to a ColdFusion
>> framework. Don't you think that is comparing Apples to Oranges?
>>
>> Within the Java World, Struts is by far the most adapted Framework of
>> its kind.  Within the ColdFusion world (and I am not just referring to
>> CFMX here). Fusebox is the most adapted Framework of its kind.
>>
>> So don't compare Fusebox with Struts, compare it to BlackBox and
>> SmartObjects.  Those are the items within the same realm, just as you
>> would compare Struts to Jade rather than comparing Struts to Zope.
>>
>>> I saw this thread mentioned on Sean's blog and I was thinking about
>>> rejoining this list before reading his blog, so here I am. I'm not
>>> interested in trying to rehash much of the debate since I am late to
>>> this thread, but I feel like it is important to make at least a  
>>> couple
>>> of points.
>>>
>>> First, I largely agree with Dave's position in this debate, but I
>>> don't
>>> agree with him in regards to his application of common sense in lieu
>>> of
>>> a framework. I think frameworks are extremely valuable and can make  
>>> an
>>> enormous difference in the success of web applications especially
>>> where
>>> more than 3 people on working on them. Of course, picking the wrong
>>> framework for an application can lead to all sorts of problems, so  
>>> the
>>> notion of one framework being the correct one in every case should be
>>> abandoned.
>>>
>>> Second, I have seen numerous references by Fusebox people both in and
>>> out of this thread in regards to how the sheer number of people using
>>> Fusebox is an important point. I like to put that into perspective a
>>> bit. According to Fusebox.org, there are 17756 using Fusebox. Not  
>>> sure
>>> where that number comes from, but let's apply that to the number of  
>>> CF
>>> developers, which is supposed to be about 300,000. That would mean
>>> about 6% of CF developers are using Fusebox. Now then, let's assume
>>> that 6% of Java developers are usin

Re: CFC Session Facade Pattern

[ksuh]

Erm, they're not talking about session persistence.  They're talking about taking a 
complex set of steps (a "session") and simplifying it.

- Original Message -
From: Erik Yowell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Friday, July 18, 2003 2:55 pm
Subject: CFC Session Facade Pattern

> I’ve got a couple of CFC-type questions to whoever would be interested
> in answering, or has had experience in this realm:
>  
> Regarding something like a Session Façade pattern ( as illustrated
> http://technet.oracle.com/sample_code/tech/java/j2ee/vsm12/vsmpatterns.h
> tml#SessionFacade ), would the same state-level advantages hold 
> true for
> session persistent CFCs in CFMX? What kind of overhead would one 
> expectimplementing a CFC Façade of such degree in CFMX? Is it even 
> worthinvestigating? Perhaps I’m being lazy and not experimenting 
> myself, just
> thought I’d toss this out the list to see if others have had
> positive/negative experiences, being as CFCs are so new in
> implementation. 
> 
> Erik Yowell
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.shortfusemedia.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4
Subscription: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq

This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for 
dependable ColdFusion Hosting.
http://www.cfhosting.com

Unsubscribe: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4

Re: Cons to Fusebox

[Matt Liotta]

How about the following quote from this thread for example.

"When compared to the alternatives (no structure at all, someone's  
personal
best guess at something, or some superior approach that conspicuously
manages to never actually be revealed) it is the best thing I've found  
so
far.  And about 17,000 other people agree. "

-Matt

On Friday, July 18, 2003, at 04:43 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> I don't think the Fusebox people are using that X number to say that  
> because there are so many X people using FB, so should you.  Rather,  
> it's there for informational purposes, and to say that, yeah, people  
> are using it.  Maybe not a lot in comparison to some other framework,  
> but the only winner in a comparison like that is the most popular item  
> in it's class.
>
> - Original Message -
> From: Matt Liotta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Friday, July 18, 2003 2:34 pm
> Subject: Re: Cons to Fusebox
>
>> See my response to another email along similar lines. However, I'd
>> to
>> respond to your email a little differently.
>>
>> Based on my earlier message it could be said that there is 10
>> times as
>> many Java developers as CF developers, so why would one use CF
>> over
>> Java? There are tons of answers to that question that I think most
>> of
>> us know. In fact, we know these answers so well that we disregard
>> the
>> number of Java developers as irrelevant.
>>
>> Now then... with so many more people using Struts as opposed to
>> Fusebox
>> (both of which can be used in Java and CF), why would one use
>> Fusebox
>> over Struts? The answers to that question aren't as important as
>> realizing that most CF developers don't know them. Thus, whenever
>> someone tries to sell Fusebox based on the number of people using
>> it
>> the obvious question remains, why not use something with a greater
>>
>> following?
>>
>> I don't use Struts or Fusebox, so I don't care. I only point this
>> out
>> to show how silly the whole "17,000 people use Fusebox and you
>> should
>> too" line is.
>>
>> -Matt
>>
>> On Friday, July 18, 2003, at 03:29 PM, Sandy Clark wrote:
>>
>>> Why are you comparing the numbers using a Java Framework to the
>> numbers> using a ColdFusion framework? Isn't that like comparing
>> Appes to
>>> Oranges? It
>>> has no meaning.  Does this mean that because there are more Java
>>> Programmers, we should all just stop using CF and move to Java??
>>>
>>> Struts is the most popular framework for Java.  It doesn't mean
>> that
>>> Struts
>>> can be used in C++ Development, nor does it mean that it can be
>> used in
>>> ColdFusion development (I did read the article on DevNet), but
>> not
>>> everyone
>>> is doing cross Java/CFMX development.
>>>
>>> Instead compare Apples to Apples.  Compare Struts to something
>> like
>>> JADE
>>> (IBM) or Barracuda.  Compare Fusebox to things like BlackBox or
>>> SmartObjects.
>>>
>>> Those are true comparisons I would like to see.
>>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 2:00 PM
>>> To: CF-Talk
>>> Subject: Re: Cons to Fusebox
>>>
>>>
>>> I saw this thread mentioned on Sean's blog and I was thinking about
>>> rejoining this list before reading his blog, so here I am. I'm not
>>> interested in trying to rehash much of the debate since I am
>> late to
>>> this thread, but I feel like it is important to make at least a
>> couple> of points.
>>>
>>> First, I largely agree with Dave's position in this debate, but
>> I don't
>>> agree with him in regards to his application of common sense in
>> lieu of
>>> a framework. I think frameworks are extremely valuable and can
>> make an
>>> enormous difference in the success of web applications
>> especially where
>>> more than 3 people on working on them. Of course, picking the wrong
>>> framework for an application can lead to all sorts of problems,
>> so the
>>> notion of one framework being the correct one in every case
>> should be
>>> abandoned.
>>>
>>> Second, I have seen numerous references by Fusebox people both
>> in and
>>> out of this thread in regards to how the sheer number of people
>> using> Fusebox is an important point. I like to put that into
>> perspective a
>>> bit. According to Fusebox.org, there are 17756 using Fusebox.
>> Not sure
>>> where that number comes from, but let's apply that to the number
>> of CF
>>> developers, which is supposed to be about 300,000. That would mean
>>> about 6% of CF developers are using Fusebox. Now then, let's assume
>>> that 6% of Java developers are using Struts. Since there is
>> supposed to
>>> be about 3,000,000 Java developers that would mean there would be
>>> 180,000 Java developers using Struts.
>>>
>>> There are a lot of reasons why one would use Struts over Fusebox and
>>> vice versa, but if sheer numbers matter to people than Struts is the
>>> way to go since it is used by a lot more people. BTW, if you
>> don't buy
>>> the above numbers; take a look at the Amazon.com sales rankin

CFC not a recognized text document in Homesite+

[BRIAN MELOCHE]

Has anyone seen where Homesite+ 5.2 doesn't recognize a CFC as a text document?  I 
guess it might be because settings were migrated from CF Studio 5.  Does anyone know 
how to fix this?  It says it's recognized in the Extension Manager, but... 
obviously... it's not.

Sincerely,

Brian Meloche,
4th Floor, ITO - 414
CSS
(304) 759-0585 x448
Macromedia Certified Advanced ColdFusion 5.0 Developer
130 pounds lost and counting!

~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4
Subscription: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq

Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in 
ColdFusion and related topics. 
http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.cfm

Unsubscribe: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4

SQL Syntax Errors with CF and Oracle

[Brian Meloche]

How I would deal with it would be to pass this to a variable first, and manipulate as 
needed.



The SQL would read:

security IN #PreserveSingleQuotes(Request.GroupNameToSQL)#

>I am having problems with Oracle and this piece of SQL in Coldfusion.  In
>the where clause
>
>security IN (#PreserveSingleQuotes(session.groupname)#)
>
>part of the sql, if this does not have a value it falls over as Oracle
>interprets this as
>
>security IN () OR security = 'all' )
>
>It does not like the () and returns the error ORA-00936: missing expression
>.
>
>How can I put in logic so if there is no value in (session.groupname) it
>would return as a NULL ??
>
>i.e.
>security IN (NULL)
>OR
>security = 'all'
>
>Any ideas ??
>
>
>
>
>SELECT *
>FROM itlinks
>WHERE linkarea='#URL.area#'
>AND
>(
>security IN (#PreserveSingleQuotes(session.groupname)#)
>OR
>security = 'all'
>)
>ORDER BY linkid desc
>
>
~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4
Subscription: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq

Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more 
resources for the community. 
http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm

Unsubscribe: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4

CFC Session Facade Pattern

[Erik Yowell]

I’ve got a couple of CFC-type questions to whoever would be interested
in answering, or has had experience in this realm:
 
Regarding something like a Session Façade pattern ( as illustrated
http://technet.oracle.com/sample_code/tech/java/j2ee/vsm12/vsmpatterns.h
tml#SessionFacade ), would the same state-level advantages hold true for
session persistent CFCs in CFMX? What kind of overhead would one expect
implementing a CFC Façade of such degree in CFMX? Is it even worth
investigating? Perhaps I’m being lazy and not experimenting myself, just
thought I’d toss this out the list to see if others have had
positive/negative experiences, being as CFCs are so new in
implementation. 

Erik Yowell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.shortfusemedia.com



~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4
Subscription: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq

Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more 
resources for the community. 
http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm

Unsubscribe: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4

Re: Cons to Fusebox

[Birgit Pauli-Haack]

didn't say you did:-)) Anecdotally I am just having fun
B.

Friday, July 18, 2003, 4:37:41 PM, you wrote:

ML> I didn't claim 6% of Java users use Struts nor did I claim that 6% of  
ML> CF developers use Fusebox. I simply threw out anecdotal numbers for the  
ML> sake a comparison.

ML> -Matt

ML> On Friday, July 18, 2003, at 03:45 PM, Birgit Pauli-Haack wrote:

>> Don't fight this people! This is not comparing oranges with apples
>> this is just the right thing!
>>
>> 6% of Jave user use Strute, 6% of CF Developer use Fusebox!
>> Struts compared to Fusebox...!
>>
>> That doesn't say much about Struts, but it tells a lot about
>> Fusebox! Is has come a long way and it finally made it into the
>> league where it receives serious considerations from a lot of high  
>> class
>> programmers, that have been all time opponents!
>>
>> Congrats to Steve, Hal, Nat, John, Eric, Jeff and others that worked
>> on it so faithfully and persistent.!
>>
>> This is a great! Made my day! And if you are out there Buddies, I hope  
>> it
>> made your day as well!
>>
>> Matt thank you!
>>
>> Birgit Pauli-Haack
>>
>> PS: hey it's Friday 
>>
>>
>> Friday, July 18, 2003, 3:29:46 PM, you wrote:
>> SC> From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> SC> Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 2:00 PM
>> SC> To: CF-Talk
>> SC> Subject: Re: Cons to Fusebox
>>
>>
>> SC> I saw this thread mentioned on Sean's blog and I was thinking about
>> SC> rejoining this list before reading his blog, so here I am. I'm not
>> SC> interested in trying to rehash much of the debate since I am late  
>> to
>> SC> this thread, but I feel like it is important to make at least a  
>> couple
>> SC> of points.
>>
>> SC> First, I largely agree with Dave's position in this debate, but I  
>> don't
>> SC> agree with him in regards to his application of common sense in  
>> lieu of
>> SC> a framework. I think frameworks are extremely valuable and can  
>> make an
>> SC> enormous difference in the success of web applications especially  
>> where
>> SC> more than 3 people on working on them. Of course, picking the wrong
>> SC> framework for an application can lead to all sorts of problems, so  
>> the
>> SC> notion of one framework being the correct one in every case should  
>> be
>> SC> abandoned.
>>
>> SC> Second, I have seen numerous references by Fusebox people both in  
>> and
>> SC> out of this thread in regards to how the sheer number of people  
>> using
>> SC> Fusebox is an important point. I like to put that into perspective  
>> a
>> SC> bit. According to Fusebox.org, there are 17756 using Fusebox. Not  
>> sure
>> SC> where that number comes from, but let's apply that to the number  
>> of CF
>> SC> developers, which is supposed to be about 300,000. That would mean
>> SC> about 6% of CF developers are using Fusebox. Now then, let's assume
>> SC> that 6% of Java developers are using Struts. Since there is  
>> supposed to
>> SC> be about 3,000,000 Java developers that would mean there would be
>> SC> 180,000 Java developers using Struts.
>>
>> SC> There are a lot of reasons why one would use Struts over Fusebox  
>> and
>> SC> vice versa, but if sheer numbers matter to people than Struts is  
>> the
>> SC> way to go since it is used by a lot more people. BTW, if you don't  
>> buy
>> SC> the above numbers; take a look at the Amazon.com sales rankings  
>> for the
>> SC> 10+ struts books vs. the Fusebox books.
>>
>> SC> -Matt
>>
>> SC> On Friday, July 18, 2003, at 12:27 PM, Erik Yowell wrote:
>>
>
> Trade offs. Everything is a trade off. Sometimes the quick,
> unstructured 'hack' is the right solution...
>

 This for me (being a small shop) is why I've extensively adopted a
 framework like Fusebox. Most of my projects are not going to become  
 an
 Amazon.com anytime soon, while this doesn't mean I should write  
 sloppy
 code - it does allow the flexibility of allowing a bit of a  
 processing
 overhead in lieu of manageability and the ability to bring in  
 external
 talent to easily assist me in changes (if needed) by providing a good
 set of standards and the Fusebox docs. I don't have to spend precious
 time educating another developer on the intricacies of a custom
 framework.

 Despite what organizations like Rational think (in the sense that  
 there
 is no such thing as RAD development) - I mean, come on now, how many
 developers out there have had the "I needed it yesterday"  
 conversation
 with a client? I find having the ability to quickly find and make
 changes to medium sized projects, forced structuring of code and
 application processes to be a boon.

 Erik Yowell
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 http://www.shortfusemedia.com



>>
>> SC>
>> 
ML> 
~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4
Subscription: 
http://www.houseoffusio

RE: Cons to Fusebox

[Sandy Clark]

Again, I don't think anyone can say they will use Fusebox in a Java World or
Struts in a CF5 world. There is no comparison.  If you are talking numbers
as a way to go by your own supposition, there are 10 times the number of
Java Developers.  You can't compare the frameworks like that.  There is no
commonality in terms of ability to use them in the areas for which they are
not designed.

So I don't think that comparing Struts to Fusebox is a reasonable
comparison.  Its like saying there are more people in the world who drive
cars rather than boats, cars sell better, therefore regardless of whether
you are on land or water, you should be in a car.

Cars are for land, boats are for water.
Struts is for Java, Fusebox is for CFML.

Personally I don't care how many people use something. To me that isn't a
valid argument.  What I am concerned about is what will work for me and the
people who work with me in developing web applications quickly and cleanly.


I have yet to be introduced to a framework that will work in both CF5 or
CFMX that will help me structure my code and not have to worry about all the
housekeeping, other than Fusebox.  I've looked at BlackBox, I've looked at
SmartObjects.  Neither of them come close.  

If you have a framework that will work better in ColdFusion, then please
introduce it to me. I have always said that I will be more then happy to
drop Fusebox if something better comes along.  I've always said it's a
framework not a religion.  

>> There are a lot of reasons why one would use Struts over Fusebox and
>> vice versa, but if sheer numbers matter to people than Struts is the
>> way to go since it is used by a lot more people.


-Original Message-
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 4:24 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Cons to Fusebox


I don't see why comparing different kinds of framework is an issue if  
you limit your comparison to specifics that are shared by both. As I  
pointed out in my first email, there is no one framework that is best  
for all applications, so what the framework is or what it does is  
irrelevant to my point, which was in regards to sheer numbers. And  
since both frameworks have a following it is perfectly acceptable to  
compare that following.

-Matt

On Friday, July 18, 2003, at 03:07 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED]  
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> Interesting that you are comparing a Java Framework to a ColdFusion  
> framework. Don't you think that is comparing Apples to Oranges?
>
> Within the Java World, Struts is by far the most adapted Framework of  
> its kind.  Within the ColdFusion world (and I am not just referring to  
> CFMX here). Fusebox is the most adapted Framework of its kind.
>
> So don't compare Fusebox with Struts, compare it to BlackBox and  
> SmartObjects.  Those are the items within the same realm, just as you  
> would compare Struts to Jade rather than comparing Struts to Zope.
>
>> I saw this thread mentioned on Sean's blog and I was thinking about
>> rejoining this list before reading his blog, so here I am. I'm not
>> interested in trying to rehash much of the debate since I am late to
>> this thread, but I feel like it is important to make at least a couple
>> of points.
>>
>> First, I largely agree with Dave's position in this debate, but I  
>> don't
>> agree with him in regards to his application of common sense in lieu  
>> of
>> a framework. I think frameworks are extremely valuable and can make an
>> enormous difference in the success of web applications especially  
>> where
>> more than 3 people on working on them. Of course, picking the wrong
>> framework for an application can lead to all sorts of problems, so the
>> notion of one framework being the correct one in every case should be
>> abandoned.
>>
>> Second, I have seen numerous references by Fusebox people both in and
>> out of this thread in regards to how the sheer number of people using
>> Fusebox is an important point. I like to put that into perspective a
>> bit. According to Fusebox.org, there are 17756 using Fusebox. Not sure
>> where that number comes from, but let's apply that to the number of CF
>> developers, which is supposed to be about 300,000. That would mean
>> about 6% of CF developers are using Fusebox. Now then, let's assume
>> that 6% of Java developers are using Struts. Since there is supposed  
>> to
>> be about 3,000,000 Java developers that would mean there would be
>> 180,000 Java developers using Struts.
>>
>> There are a lot of reasons why one would use Struts over Fusebox and
>> vice versa, but if sheer numbers matter to people than Struts is the
>> way to go since it is used by a lot more people. BTW, if you don't buy
>> the above numbers; take a look at the Amazon.com sales rankings for  
>> the
>> 10+ struts books vs. the Fusebox books.
>>
>> -Matt
>>
>> On Friday, July 18, 2003, at 12:27 PM, Erik Yowell wrote:
>>

 Trade offs. Everything is a trade off. Sometimes the quick,
 unstructu

Re: Cons to Fusebox

[ksuh]

I don't think the Fusebox people are using that X number to say that because there are 
so many X people using FB, so should you.  Rather, it's there for informational 
purposes, and to say that, yeah, people are using it.  Maybe not a lot in comparison 
to some other framework, but the only winner in a comparison like that is the most 
popular item in it's class.

- Original Message -
From: Matt Liotta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Friday, July 18, 2003 2:34 pm
Subject: Re: Cons to Fusebox

> See my response to another email along similar lines. However, I'd 
> to  
> respond to your email a little differently.
> 
> Based on my earlier message it could be said that there is 10 
> times as  
> many Java developers as CF developers, so why would one use CF 
> over  
> Java? There are tons of answers to that question that I think most 
> of  
> us know. In fact, we know these answers so well that we disregard 
> the  
> number of Java developers as irrelevant.
> 
> Now then... with so many more people using Struts as opposed to 
> Fusebox  
> (both of which can be used in Java and CF), why would one use 
> Fusebox  
> over Struts? The answers to that question aren't as important as  
> realizing that most CF developers don't know them. Thus, whenever  
> someone tries to sell Fusebox based on the number of people using 
> it  
> the obvious question remains, why not use something with a greater 
> 
> following?
> 
> I don't use Struts or Fusebox, so I don't care. I only point this 
> out  
> to show how silly the whole "17,000 people use Fusebox and you 
> should  
> too" line is.
> 
> -Matt
> 
> On Friday, July 18, 2003, at 03:29 PM, Sandy Clark wrote:
> 
> > Why are you comparing the numbers using a Java Framework to the 
> numbers> using a ColdFusion framework? Isn't that like comparing 
> Appes to  
> > Oranges? It
> > has no meaning.  Does this mean that because there are more Java
> > Programmers, we should all just stop using CF and move to Java??
> >
> > Struts is the most popular framework for Java.  It doesn't mean 
> that  
> > Struts
> > can be used in C++ Development, nor does it mean that it can be 
> used in
> > ColdFusion development (I did read the article on DevNet), but 
> not  
> > everyone
> > is doing cross Java/CFMX development.
> >
> > Instead compare Apples to Apples.  Compare Struts to something 
> like  
> > JADE
> > (IBM) or Barracuda.  Compare Fusebox to things like BlackBox or
> > SmartObjects.
> >
> > Those are true comparisons I would like to see.
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 2:00 PM
> > To: CF-Talk
> > Subject: Re: Cons to Fusebox
> >
> >
> > I saw this thread mentioned on Sean's blog and I was thinking about
> > rejoining this list before reading his blog, so here I am. I'm not
> > interested in trying to rehash much of the debate since I am 
> late to
> > this thread, but I feel like it is important to make at least a 
> couple> of points.
> >
> > First, I largely agree with Dave's position in this debate, but 
> I don't
> > agree with him in regards to his application of common sense in 
> lieu of
> > a framework. I think frameworks are extremely valuable and can 
> make an
> > enormous difference in the success of web applications 
> especially where
> > more than 3 people on working on them. Of course, picking the wrong
> > framework for an application can lead to all sorts of problems, 
> so the
> > notion of one framework being the correct one in every case 
> should be
> > abandoned.
> >
> > Second, I have seen numerous references by Fusebox people both 
> in and
> > out of this thread in regards to how the sheer number of people 
> using> Fusebox is an important point. I like to put that into 
> perspective a
> > bit. According to Fusebox.org, there are 17756 using Fusebox. 
> Not sure
> > where that number comes from, but let's apply that to the number 
> of CF
> > developers, which is supposed to be about 300,000. That would mean
> > about 6% of CF developers are using Fusebox. Now then, let's assume
> > that 6% of Java developers are using Struts. Since there is 
> supposed to
> > be about 3,000,000 Java developers that would mean there would be
> > 180,000 Java developers using Struts.
> >
> > There are a lot of reasons why one would use Struts over Fusebox and
> > vice versa, but if sheer numbers matter to people than Struts is the
> > way to go since it is used by a lot more people. BTW, if you 
> don't buy
> > the above numbers; take a look at the Amazon.com sales rankings 
> for the
> > 10+ struts books vs. the Fusebox books.
> >
> > -Matt
> >
> > On Friday, July 18, 2003, at 12:27 PM, Erik Yowell wrote:
> >
> >>>
> >>> Trade offs. Everything is a trade off. Sometimes the quick,
> >>> unstructured 'hack' is the right solution...
> >>>
> >>
> >> This for me (being a small shop) is why I've extensively 
> adopted a
> >> framework like Fusebox. Most of my projects are not going to 

Re: RE: Cons to Fusebox

[ksuh]

Don't prod Matt.  He's really easy to goad :)

- Original Message -
From: Michael Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Friday, July 18, 2003 2:38 pm
Subject: RE: Cons to Fusebox

> Hi,
> 
> >> I don't see why 
> 
> You never do, Matt. :) 
> 
> >> is perfectly acceptable to  
> >> compare that following
> 
> Had you confined your comparison to ColdFusion frameworks your 
> point would
> have much more validity. I do however agree with you that no 
> framework is
> best for all situations and that the number of developers using a 
> specificframework does not make it any more, or less, the right 
> framework for the
> job at hand.
> 
> By the way, shouldn't you be busy writing your next enlightening 
> article or
> something? Just kidding... Just kidding. :)
> 
> Best regards, 
> Michael Wilson 
> 
> 
> 
> 
~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4
Subscription: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq

Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more 
resources for the community. 
http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm

Unsubscribe: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4

RE: Cons to Fusebox

[Michael Wilson]

Hi,

>> I don't see why 

You never do, Matt. :) 

>> is perfectly acceptable to  
>> compare that following

Had you confined your comparison to ColdFusion frameworks your point would
have much more validity. I do however agree with you that no framework is
best for all situations and that the number of developers using a specific
framework does not make it any more, or less, the right framework for the
job at hand.

By the way, shouldn't you be busy writing your next enlightening article or
something? Just kidding... Just kidding. :)

Best regards,
Michael Wilson 



~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4
Subscription: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq

Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more 
resources for the community. 
http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm

Unsubscribe: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4

RE: 100% CPU on CF5 - but patch has already applied!

[DURETTE, STEVEN J (AIT)]

Brian,

Don't take this the wrong way.  

Have you checked your cf code and any queries that you are running? I have
had problems of 100% usage and generally it was due to a coding error or
very poorly written query.  Since it is developer edition, you should know
which templates are running when it occurs, so I would start there.

Steve


-Original Message-
From: BRIAN MELOCHE [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 11:35 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: 100% CPU on CF5 - but patch has already applied!


Hello all...

I thought I would post this to the list, since my attempts to solve the
problem have failed.

I have run into an old problem.  Well, sort of.  I have the developer
version of CF5 installed on my desktop at work, which is running XP Pro on a
2.8 GHz P4...  and I am running into the 100% CPU usage caused by
NTconsoleJava.exe - the ColdFusion Management Repository Server.

But... here's the problem:  I have applied the patches from Macromedia and
deleted the logs, as according to:

http://www.macromedia.com/support/coldfusion/ts/documents/tn18000.htm

BUT I STILL HAVE THE PROBLEM!!!  It's still doing it!

Other than disabling the service, is there anything I can do to fix the
problem?  Has anyone run into this problem AFTER applying the patch?  Is
there another patch that I can't find?

Sincerely,

Brian Meloche,
4th Floor, ITO - 414
CSS
(304) 759-0585 x448
Macromedia Certified Advanced ColdFusion 5.0 Developer
130 pounds lost and counting!


~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4
Subscription: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq

Get the mailserver that powers this list at 
http://www.coolfusion.com

Unsubscribe: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4

Re: Cons to Fusebox

[Matt Liotta]

I didn't claim 6% of Java users use Struts nor did I claim that 6% of  
CF developers use Fusebox. I simply threw out anecdotal numbers for the  
sake a comparison.

-Matt

On Friday, July 18, 2003, at 03:45 PM, Birgit Pauli-Haack wrote:

> Don't fight this people! This is not comparing oranges with apples
> this is just the right thing!
>
> 6% of Jave user use Strute, 6% of CF Developer use Fusebox!
> Struts compared to Fusebox...!
>
> That doesn't say much about Struts, but it tells a lot about
> Fusebox! Is has come a long way and it finally made it into the
> league where it receives serious considerations from a lot of high  
> class
> programmers, that have been all time opponents!
>
> Congrats to Steve, Hal, Nat, John, Eric, Jeff and others that worked
> on it so faithfully and persistent.!
>
> This is a great! Made my day! And if you are out there Buddies, I hope  
> it
> made your day as well!
>
> Matt thank you!
>
> Birgit Pauli-Haack
>
> PS: hey it's Friday 
>
>
> Friday, July 18, 2003, 3:29:46 PM, you wrote:
> SC> From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> SC> Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 2:00 PM
> SC> To: CF-Talk
> SC> Subject: Re: Cons to Fusebox
>
>
> SC> I saw this thread mentioned on Sean's blog and I was thinking about
> SC> rejoining this list before reading his blog, so here I am. I'm not
> SC> interested in trying to rehash much of the debate since I am late  
> to
> SC> this thread, but I feel like it is important to make at least a  
> couple
> SC> of points.
>
> SC> First, I largely agree with Dave's position in this debate, but I  
> don't
> SC> agree with him in regards to his application of common sense in  
> lieu of
> SC> a framework. I think frameworks are extremely valuable and can  
> make an
> SC> enormous difference in the success of web applications especially  
> where
> SC> more than 3 people on working on them. Of course, picking the wrong
> SC> framework for an application can lead to all sorts of problems, so  
> the
> SC> notion of one framework being the correct one in every case should  
> be
> SC> abandoned.
>
> SC> Second, I have seen numerous references by Fusebox people both in  
> and
> SC> out of this thread in regards to how the sheer number of people  
> using
> SC> Fusebox is an important point. I like to put that into perspective  
> a
> SC> bit. According to Fusebox.org, there are 17756 using Fusebox. Not  
> sure
> SC> where that number comes from, but let's apply that to the number  
> of CF
> SC> developers, which is supposed to be about 300,000. That would mean
> SC> about 6% of CF developers are using Fusebox. Now then, let's assume
> SC> that 6% of Java developers are using Struts. Since there is  
> supposed to
> SC> be about 3,000,000 Java developers that would mean there would be
> SC> 180,000 Java developers using Struts.
>
> SC> There are a lot of reasons why one would use Struts over Fusebox  
> and
> SC> vice versa, but if sheer numbers matter to people than Struts is  
> the
> SC> way to go since it is used by a lot more people. BTW, if you don't  
> buy
> SC> the above numbers; take a look at the Amazon.com sales rankings  
> for the
> SC> 10+ struts books vs. the Fusebox books.
>
> SC> -Matt
>
> SC> On Friday, July 18, 2003, at 12:27 PM, Erik Yowell wrote:
>

 Trade offs. Everything is a trade off. Sometimes the quick,
 unstructured 'hack' is the right solution...

>>>
>>> This for me (being a small shop) is why I've extensively adopted a
>>> framework like Fusebox. Most of my projects are not going to become  
>>> an
>>> Amazon.com anytime soon, while this doesn't mean I should write  
>>> sloppy
>>> code - it does allow the flexibility of allowing a bit of a  
>>> processing
>>> overhead in lieu of manageability and the ability to bring in  
>>> external
>>> talent to easily assist me in changes (if needed) by providing a good
>>> set of standards and the Fusebox docs. I don't have to spend precious
>>> time educating another developer on the intricacies of a custom
>>> framework.
>>>
>>> Despite what organizations like Rational think (in the sense that  
>>> there
>>> is no such thing as RAD development) - I mean, come on now, how many
>>> developers out there have had the "I needed it yesterday"  
>>> conversation
>>> with a client? I find having the ability to quickly find and make
>>> changes to medium sized projects, forced structuring of code and
>>> application processes to be a boon.
>>>
>>> Erik Yowell
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> http://www.shortfusemedia.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
> SC>
> 
~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4
Subscription: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq

This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for 
dependable ColdFusion Hosting.
http://www.cfhosting.com

   

OT stored procedure reading dbase 5 file

[Tim Do]

Can anybody show me how I would select records from a dbase 5 file with a
stored procedure?  I need to read it and insert into sql table.
 
Thanks,
Tim
 
 
 

~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4
Subscription: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq

Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in 
ColdFusion and related topics. 
http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.cfm

Unsubscribe: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4

Re: Cons to Fusebox

[Jamie Jackson]

On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 16:36:20 -0400, in cf-talk you wrote:

>In your experience,
>how often do you have one developer working on the form and another working
>on the action file? 

Answer: As I type.

I know the form, and he knows what he's doing with XML storage and
retrieval. Do I feel like learning his XML model, etc.? Do I care
about developer number 3's DB model? No, she just feeds me result
sets. I don't have time to know the entire app right now...
eventually, but not right now, I've got work to do.

This project would be a mess without Fusebox. Yes, I've run into
problems using FB3 (FB4 promises remedies for my issues), but I
haven't regretted FB for this project.

Jamie
~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4
Subscription: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq

Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in 
ColdFusion and related topics. 
http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.cfm

Unsubscribe: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4

Re: Cons to Fusebox

[Matt Liotta]

See my response to another email along similar lines. However, I'd to  
respond to your email a little differently.

Based on my earlier message it could be said that there is 10 times as  
many Java developers as CF developers, so why would one use CF over  
Java? There are tons of answers to that question that I think most of  
us know. In fact, we know these answers so well that we disregard the  
number of Java developers as irrelevant.

Now then... with so many more people using Struts as opposed to Fusebox  
(both of which can be used in Java and CF), why would one use Fusebox  
over Struts? The answers to that question aren't as important as  
realizing that most CF developers don't know them. Thus, whenever  
someone tries to sell Fusebox based on the number of people using it  
the obvious question remains, why not use something with a greater  
following?

I don't use Struts or Fusebox, so I don't care. I only point this out  
to show how silly the whole "17,000 people use Fusebox and you should  
too" line is.

-Matt

On Friday, July 18, 2003, at 03:29 PM, Sandy Clark wrote:

> Why are you comparing the numbers using a Java Framework to the numbers
> using a ColdFusion framework? Isn't that like comparing Appes to  
> Oranges? It
> has no meaning.  Does this mean that because there are more Java
> Programmers, we should all just stop using CF and move to Java??
>
> Struts is the most popular framework for Java.  It doesn't mean that  
> Struts
> can be used in C++ Development, nor does it mean that it can be used in
> ColdFusion development (I did read the article on DevNet), but not  
> everyone
> is doing cross Java/CFMX development.
>
> Instead compare Apples to Apples.  Compare Struts to something like  
> JADE
> (IBM) or Barracuda.  Compare Fusebox to things like BlackBox or
> SmartObjects.
>
> Those are true comparisons I would like to see.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 2:00 PM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: Re: Cons to Fusebox
>
>
> I saw this thread mentioned on Sean's blog and I was thinking about
> rejoining this list before reading his blog, so here I am. I'm not
> interested in trying to rehash much of the debate since I am late to
> this thread, but I feel like it is important to make at least a couple
> of points.
>
> First, I largely agree with Dave's position in this debate, but I don't
> agree with him in regards to his application of common sense in lieu of
> a framework. I think frameworks are extremely valuable and can make an
> enormous difference in the success of web applications especially where
> more than 3 people on working on them. Of course, picking the wrong
> framework for an application can lead to all sorts of problems, so the
> notion of one framework being the correct one in every case should be
> abandoned.
>
> Second, I have seen numerous references by Fusebox people both in and
> out of this thread in regards to how the sheer number of people using
> Fusebox is an important point. I like to put that into perspective a
> bit. According to Fusebox.org, there are 17756 using Fusebox. Not sure
> where that number comes from, but let's apply that to the number of CF
> developers, which is supposed to be about 300,000. That would mean
> about 6% of CF developers are using Fusebox. Now then, let's assume
> that 6% of Java developers are using Struts. Since there is supposed to
> be about 3,000,000 Java developers that would mean there would be
> 180,000 Java developers using Struts.
>
> There are a lot of reasons why one would use Struts over Fusebox and
> vice versa, but if sheer numbers matter to people than Struts is the
> way to go since it is used by a lot more people. BTW, if you don't buy
> the above numbers; take a look at the Amazon.com sales rankings for the
> 10+ struts books vs. the Fusebox books.
>
> -Matt
>
> On Friday, July 18, 2003, at 12:27 PM, Erik Yowell wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Trade offs. Everything is a trade off. Sometimes the quick,
>>> unstructured 'hack' is the right solution...
>>>
>>
>> This for me (being a small shop) is why I've extensively adopted a
>> framework like Fusebox. Most of my projects are not going to become an
>> Amazon.com anytime soon, while this doesn't mean I should write sloppy
>> code - it does allow the flexibility of allowing a bit of a processing
>> overhead in lieu of manageability and the ability to bring in external
>> talent to easily assist me in changes (if needed) by providing a good
>> set of standards and the Fusebox docs. I don't have to spend precious
>> time educating another developer on the intricacies of a custom
>> framework.
>>
>> Despite what organizations like Rational think (in the sense that  
>> there
>> is no such thing as RAD development) - I mean, come on now, how many
>> developers out there have had the "I needed it yesterday" conversation
>> with a client? I find having the ability to quickly find and make
>> changes to medi

100% CPU on CF5 - but patch has already applied!

[BRIAN MELOCHE]

Hello all...

I thought I would post this to the list, since my attempts to solve the problem have 
failed.

I have run into an old problem.  Well, sort of.  I have the developer version of CF5 
installed on my desktop at work, which is running XP Pro on a 2.8 GHz P4...  and I am 
running into the 100% CPU usage caused by NTconsoleJava.exe - the ColdFusion 
Management Repository Server.

But... here's the problem:  I have applied the patches from Macromedia and deleted the 
logs, as according to:

http://www.macromedia.com/support/coldfusion/ts/documents/tn18000.htm

BUT I STILL HAVE THE PROBLEM!!!  It's still doing it!

Other than disabling the service, is there anything I can do to fix the problem?  Has 
anyone run into this problem AFTER applying the patch?  Is there another patch that I 
can't find?

Sincerely,

Brian Meloche,
4th Floor, ITO - 414
CSS
(304) 759-0585 x448
Macromedia Certified Advanced ColdFusion 5.0 Developer
130 pounds lost and counting!

~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4
Subscription: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq

Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more 
resources for the community. 
http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm

Unsubscribe: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4

Re: RE: RE: MSDN on CF -> ASP.net

[ksuh]

Thus, to me, providing another layer of abstraction on 
> top of
> this to make everything look like it's event-driven seems to be 
> potentiallyfraught with hazards.

Well, I do think it works quite well.  And MS themselves tell you, that if you don't 
need the functionality, don't use it.  They're the first to tell you not to abuse the 
model, because it does come with a cost.

Anyhow, all abstractions come at a cost, and all abstractions are leaky.  Including 
things like CF.

> 
> > None, really. However, events happen all the time in the 
> > real world. Your car explodes. Frogs fall from the sky.
> 
> Somehow, I don't think that's how people came up with the idea of 
> the GUI
> application.

Nah, it was probably paper forms.

> 
> > Well, this is the same case in traditional desktop GUIs as 
> > well!  There's absolutely no correlation between, say, the 
> > code you wrote for a pretty Swing window and the pixels that 
> > appear on the screen, other than the code that declares it. 
> 
> Perhaps, but the illusion certainly seems more real with a desktop GUI
> application, since the surrounding desktop itself follows the same 
> illusion,and it's possible to develop GUI applications without 
> knowing anything
> beyond the illusion.

Well, this has only been the case recently.  I think some of the Unix windowing 
systems and then Java took huge strides towards this, and everybody else has been 
following suit.  But there was a time (a long time) where, yeah, you had to worry 
about the underlying details, and it was a big issue.

> I don't think that's true for web applications.

Not yet.  But it'll happen.  We're getting closer every day - Java Applets, web 
services, Flash MX, etc.  And we have things like CF, which already abstracts a ton of 
stuff for server side programming (and some on the client side).

> 
> > I'm not a huge "if" fan when I'm using an OO language.  
> > Anytime I write something like:
> > 
> > if (condition) {
> >  do this
> > }else 
> > {
> >  do that
> > } 
> > 
> > I consider it a candidate for refactoring.
> 
> That actually strikes me as the best argument yet in its favor.

Come on, now you're just testing me :)



~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4
Subscription: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq

Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in 
ColdFusion and related topics. 
http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.cfm

Unsubscribe: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4

Re: Cons to Fusebox

[Matt Liotta]

I don't see why comparing different kinds of framework is an issue if  
you limit your comparison to specifics that are shared by both. As I  
pointed out in my first email, there is no one framework that is best  
for all applications, so what the framework is or what it does is  
irrelevant to my point, which was in regards to sheer numbers. And  
since both frameworks have a following it is perfectly acceptable to  
compare that following.

-Matt

On Friday, July 18, 2003, at 03:07 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED]  
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> Interesting that you are comparing a Java Framework to a ColdFusion  
> framework. Don't you think that is comparing Apples to Oranges?
>
> Within the Java World, Struts is by far the most adapted Framework of  
> its kind.  Within the ColdFusion world (and I am not just referring to  
> CFMX here). Fusebox is the most adapted Framework of its kind.
>
> So don't compare Fusebox with Struts, compare it to BlackBox and  
> SmartObjects.  Those are the items within the same realm, just as you  
> would compare Struts to Jade rather than comparing Struts to Zope.
>
>> I saw this thread mentioned on Sean's blog and I was thinking about
>> rejoining this list before reading his blog, so here I am. I'm not
>> interested in trying to rehash much of the debate since I am late to
>> this thread, but I feel like it is important to make at least a couple
>> of points.
>>
>> First, I largely agree with Dave's position in this debate, but I  
>> don't
>> agree with him in regards to his application of common sense in lieu  
>> of
>> a framework. I think frameworks are extremely valuable and can make an
>> enormous difference in the success of web applications especially  
>> where
>> more than 3 people on working on them. Of course, picking the wrong
>> framework for an application can lead to all sorts of problems, so the
>> notion of one framework being the correct one in every case should be
>> abandoned.
>>
>> Second, I have seen numerous references by Fusebox people both in and
>> out of this thread in regards to how the sheer number of people using
>> Fusebox is an important point. I like to put that into perspective a
>> bit. According to Fusebox.org, there are 17756 using Fusebox. Not sure
>> where that number comes from, but let's apply that to the number of CF
>> developers, which is supposed to be about 300,000. That would mean
>> about 6% of CF developers are using Fusebox. Now then, let's assume
>> that 6% of Java developers are using Struts. Since there is supposed  
>> to
>> be about 3,000,000 Java developers that would mean there would be
>> 180,000 Java developers using Struts.
>>
>> There are a lot of reasons why one would use Struts over Fusebox and
>> vice versa, but if sheer numbers matter to people than Struts is the
>> way to go since it is used by a lot more people. BTW, if you don't buy
>> the above numbers; take a look at the Amazon.com sales rankings for  
>> the
>> 10+ struts books vs. the Fusebox books.
>>
>> -Matt
>>
>> On Friday, July 18, 2003, at 12:27 PM, Erik Yowell wrote:
>>

 Trade offs. Everything is a trade off. Sometimes the quick,
 unstructured 'hack' is the right solution...

>>>
>>> This for me (being a small shop) is why I've extensively adopted a
>>> framework like Fusebox. Most of my projects are not going to become  
>>> an
>>> Amazon.com anytime soon, while this doesn't mean I should write  
>>> sloppy
>>> code - it does allow the flexibility of allowing a bit of a  
>>> processing
>>> overhead in lieu of manageability and the ability to bring in  
>>> external
>>> talent to easily assist me in changes (if needed) by providing a good
>>> set of standards and the Fusebox docs. I don't have to spend precious
>>> time educating another developer on the intricacies of a custom
>>> framework.
>>>
>>> Despite what organizations like Rational think (in the sense that  
>>> there
>>> is no such thing as RAD development) - I mean, come on now, how many
>>> developers out there have had the "I needed it yesterday"  
>>> conversation
>>> with a client? I find having the ability to quickly find and make
>>> changes to medium sized projects, forced structuring of code and
>>> application processes to be a boon.
>>>
>>> Erik Yowell
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> http://www.shortfusemedia.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
> 
~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4
Subscription: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq

Get the mailserver that powers this list at 
http://www.coolfusion.com

Unsubscribe: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4

RE: Cons to Fusebox

[Mosh Teitelbaum]

Brian Kotek wrote:
> Mosh, you are probably the most even-headed person here.  The
> observations you list here are pretty accurrate.  And thanks for
> the kudos, I really am just trying to help.  I really like
> Fusebox, but I do try hard not to be the zealot that some people
> think all Fuseboxers are.  Personally I haven't run into anything
> that Fusebox couldn't handle, and I work on very large and
> complex applications with tens of thousands of lines of CF code.
> But if some folks do have challenges that Fusebox can't solve in
> an efficient way for them, then they shouldn't use Fusebox, it's
> just that simple.
>
> I appreciate your views on the subject as well.  Sorry to spoil
> your thread by going beyond just talking about hub-and-spoke, but
> ya start answering questions and it just snowballs.  It sure
> brought everyone out of the woodwork, didn't it?  ;-)

Indeed, it seems to have done just that.

I wouldn't go so far as to say it spoiled it.  The thread was well worth
reading.  Heck Sean found it interesting enough to stick in his blog 8^).

So... anyone want to explain to me the pros/cons of... eh, nevermind 8^).

--
Mosh Teitelbaum
evoch, LLC
Tel: (301) 942-5378
Fax: (301) 933-3651
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
WWW: http://www.evoch.com/

~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4
Subscription: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq

Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more 
resources for the community. 
http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm

Unsubscribe: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4

RE: Billing Advertisers

[Eric Dawson]

Internet Advertising - checkout
http://www.iab.net/
http://www.iab.net/standards/adunits.asp




From: "Russ" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: CF-Talk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: Billing Advertisers
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 01:58:28 -0500

Sorry, just realized my response went a bit OT on what you originally
asked for, but an addition to phpMyAds is that it shows you common
sizes, common practices, etc.

It's difficult to gauge a range of rates without knowing the traffic,
the target audience, etc.  I'd recommend scoping the competition and see
if you can figure out what they're doing.

Best,

Russ

 > -Original Message-
 > From: Cutter (CF-Talk)2 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 > Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 4:54 PM
 > To: CF-Talk
 > Subject: OT: Billing Advertisers
 >
 >
 > Our organization has come to me saying that they now want to begin
 > selling advertising space on our site. The only item of which
 > we truly
 > agree is that we will not allow pop-ads.
 >
 > My question is this, are there other standard options to web
 > advertising
 > other that the banner/click-through pricing schemas? Where
 > could I find
 > information on what might be good rates to charge? etc. Any help is
 > greatly appreciated.
 >
 > Cutter
 >
 >

~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4
Subscription: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq

Get the mailserver that powers this list at 
http://www.coolfusion.com

Unsubscribe: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4

RE: RE: MSDN on CF -> ASP.net

[Dave Watts]

> > Well, sure, but the illusion seems less illusory on a 
> > desktop than in a web application. Thus, I submit that 
> > it makes for a more useful model for desktop applications 
> > than for HTTP applications, where the request-response
> > model sticks out like a sore thumb.
> 
> Well, see, it's not the request-response model that's the 
> problem. It's the fact that browsers _must_ render a new web 
> page when they start a request-response cycle. That's the 
> problem. Oh sure, there are ways around this, but they're 
> all a pain.

Well, that's what makes it stand out like a sore thumb. The fact is,
browsers weren't intended as application interfaces, but here we all are
anyway. To be a competent web developer, it's important to understand the
limitations of browsers and how they interact with servers. Maybe it won't
be as necessary to understand this in the future, when we're all developing
with Flash MXXX and Windows Web Forms 2005 and whatever else comes up, but
it is now. Thus, to me, providing another layer of abstraction on top of
this to make everything look like it's event-driven seems to be potentially
fraught with hazards.

> None, really. However, events happen all the time in the 
> real world. Your car explodes. Frogs fall from the sky.

Somehow, I don't think that's how people came up with the idea of the GUI
application.

> Well, this is the same case in traditional desktop GUIs as 
> well!  There's absolutely no correlation between, say, the 
> code you wrote for a pretty Swing window and the pixels that 
> appear on the screen, other than the code that declares it. 

Perhaps, but the illusion certainly seems more real with a desktop GUI
application, since the surrounding desktop itself follows the same illusion,
and it's possible to develop GUI applications without knowing anything
beyond the illusion. I don't think that's true for web applications.

> I'm not a huge "if" fan when I'm using an OO language.  
> Anytime I write something like:
> 
> if (condition) {
>  do this
> }else 
> {
>  do that
> } 
> 
> I consider it a candidate for refactoring.

That actually strikes me as the best argument yet in its favor.

Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
http://www.figleaf.com/
voice: (202) 797-5496
fax: (202) 797-5444


~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4
Subscription: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq

Get the mailserver that powers this list at 
http://www.coolfusion.com

Unsubscribe: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4

Architecture and Infrastructure Question

[Michael Ross]

I was hoping to start a question with any sys admin's on the list a large or mega 
large companies on what type of infrastructure they have set up.  I would love to 
bounce some idea's and thoughts off of others.  Anyone implementing the new 
"Application Enterprise Suite's" like Novell Extend, Sun One's or any others.  How are 
you handling your vpn access like rsa or ichain.  We can either get a thread going or 
take it off list.

thanks  

~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4
Subscription: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq

Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in 
ColdFusion and related topics. 
http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.cfm

Unsubscribe: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4

Re: FuseQ Documentation?

[Jamie Jackson]

Thanks. I had already downloaded that, but hadn't looked at it yet.
Looking now... :)

Thanks,
Jamie

On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 14:34:28 -0400, in cf-talk you wrote:

>Hi,
>
>FWIW the "Migration from FB3 to FB4" download here:
>http://beta.fusebox.org/index.cfm?method=Fusebox4.download includes an
>example Fb3/MVC app and a FuseQ/MVC app. It may help you figure it all out a
>bit. Good luck!
>
>Best regards,   
>Michael Wilson - IQMax, Inc.- Application Developer 
>-   
>6101 Carnegie Blvd., Suite 450, Charlotte, NC 28209 
>-   
>Phone: 704.377.2202 Ext. 213 - Fax: 704.358.8254
>-   
>Instant Messaging:  
>ICQ: 18180955 - AIM: mwilsonIQMax - WM: cfdude1 
>-   
>
>
>-Original Message-
>From: Jamie Jackson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
>
>It seems FB3 is basically incompatible with MVC
>
>
>
~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4
Subscription: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq

This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for 
dependable ColdFusion Hosting.
http://www.cfhosting.com

Unsubscribe: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4

RE: Fusebox list

[Michael Wilson]

Hi,

...and this list has seen more Fusebox traffic in two days than those have
all month, lol :)

Best regards,
Michael Wilson

-Original Message-
From: Chris Montgomery [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 2:54 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Fusebox list


To my knowledge, these are the Fusebox lists that are currently active:


~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4
Subscription: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq

Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in 
ColdFusion and related topics. 
http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.cfm

Unsubscribe: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4

Cons to Fusebox

[Brian Kotek]

Stace, while we wait for Dave's example apps and documentation of his development 
approach, I thought I'd let you know that lots of examples and framework code is 
available at www.fusebox.org for anyone to look at and try out.

;-)

Nice to see ya again, btw.

Brian

>Hola Dave!
>
>Any chance you'd have a small example app or what not that depicts your
>typical approach to developing/structuring/architecting an appplication
>in CF? 
>
>Cheers!
>
>Stace
~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4
Subscription: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq

Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in 
ColdFusion and related topics. 
http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.cfm

Unsubscribe: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4

Anybody used CFX_RawSocket?

[James Johnson]

Hello,
 
Has anyone used CFX_RawSocket from IEXP
(http://www.iexp.com/products/cfx_rawsocket/) before? I'm having problems
implementing it and could use some help.
 
Thanks,
 
James Johnson

~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4
Subscription: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq

Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more 
resources for the community. 
http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm

Unsubscribe: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4

Re: Cons to Fusebox

[Birgit Pauli-Haack]

Don't fight this people! This is not comparing oranges with apples
this is just the right thing!

6% of Jave user use Strute, 6% of CF Developer use Fusebox!
Struts compared to Fusebox...!

That doesn't say much about Struts, but it tells a lot about
Fusebox! Is has come a long way and it finally made it into the
league where it receives serious considerations from a lot of high class
programmers, that have been all time opponents!

Congrats to Steve, Hal, Nat, John, Eric, Jeff and others that worked
on it so faithfully and persistent.!

This is a great! Made my day! And if you are out there Buddies, I hope it
made your day as well!

Matt thank you!

Birgit Pauli-Haack

PS: hey it's Friday 


Friday, July 18, 2003, 3:29:46 PM, you wrote:
SC> From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
SC> Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 2:00 PM
SC> To: CF-Talk
SC> Subject: Re: Cons to Fusebox


SC> I saw this thread mentioned on Sean's blog and I was thinking about  
SC> rejoining this list before reading his blog, so here I am. I'm not  
SC> interested in trying to rehash much of the debate since I am late to  
SC> this thread, but I feel like it is important to make at least a couple  
SC> of points.

SC> First, I largely agree with Dave's position in this debate, but I don't  
SC> agree with him in regards to his application of common sense in lieu of  
SC> a framework. I think frameworks are extremely valuable and can make an  
SC> enormous difference in the success of web applications especially where  
SC> more than 3 people on working on them. Of course, picking the wrong  
SC> framework for an application can lead to all sorts of problems, so the  
SC> notion of one framework being the correct one in every case should be  
SC> abandoned.

SC> Second, I have seen numerous references by Fusebox people both in and  
SC> out of this thread in regards to how the sheer number of people using  
SC> Fusebox is an important point. I like to put that into perspective a  
SC> bit. According to Fusebox.org, there are 17756 using Fusebox. Not sure  
SC> where that number comes from, but let's apply that to the number of CF  
SC> developers, which is supposed to be about 300,000. That would mean  
SC> about 6% of CF developers are using Fusebox. Now then, let's assume  
SC> that 6% of Java developers are using Struts. Since there is supposed to  
SC> be about 3,000,000 Java developers that would mean there would be  
SC> 180,000 Java developers using Struts.

SC> There are a lot of reasons why one would use Struts over Fusebox and  
SC> vice versa, but if sheer numbers matter to people than Struts is the  
SC> way to go since it is used by a lot more people. BTW, if you don't buy  
SC> the above numbers; take a look at the Amazon.com sales rankings for the  
SC> 10+ struts books vs. the Fusebox books.

SC> -Matt

SC> On Friday, July 18, 2003, at 12:27 PM, Erik Yowell wrote:

>>>
>>> Trade offs. Everything is a trade off. Sometimes the quick,
>>> unstructured 'hack' is the right solution...
>>>
>>
>> This for me (being a small shop) is why I've extensively adopted a
>> framework like Fusebox. Most of my projects are not going to become an
>> Amazon.com anytime soon, while this doesn't mean I should write sloppy
>> code - it does allow the flexibility of allowing a bit of a processing
>> overhead in lieu of manageability and the ability to bring in external
>> talent to easily assist me in changes (if needed) by providing a good
>> set of standards and the Fusebox docs. I don't have to spend precious
>> time educating another developer on the intricacies of a custom
>> framework.
>>
>> Despite what organizations like Rational think (in the sense that there
>> is no such thing as RAD development) - I mean, come on now, how many
>> developers out there have had the "I needed it yesterday" conversation
>> with a client? I find having the ability to quickly find and make
>> changes to medium sized projects, forced structuring of code and
>> application processes to be a boon.
>>
>> Erik Yowell
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> http://www.shortfusemedia.com
>>
>>
>> 

SC> 
~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4
Subscription: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq

Get the mailserver that powers this list at 
http://www.coolfusion.com

Unsubscribe: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4

Cons to Fusebox

[Brian Kotek]

Mosh, you are probably the most even-headed person here.  The observations you list 
here are pretty accurrate.  And thanks for the kudos, I really am just trying to help. 
 I really like Fusebox, but I do try hard not to be the zealot that some people think 
all Fuseboxers are.  Personally I haven't run into anything that Fusebox couldn't 
handle, and I work on very large and complex applications with tens of thousands of 
lines of CF code.  But if some folks do have challenges that Fusebox can't solve in an 
efficient way for them, then they shouldn't use Fusebox, it's just that simple.

I appreciate your views on the subject as well.  Sorry to spoil your thread by going 
beyond just talking about hub-and-spoke, but ya start answering questions and it just 
snowballs.  It sure brought everyone out of the woodwork, didn't it?  ;-)

Regards,

Brian



~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4
Subscription: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq

Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more 
resources for the community. 
http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm

Unsubscribe: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4

Re: RE: MSDN on CF -> ASP.net

[ksuh]

> Well, sure, but the illusion seems less illusory on a desktop than 
> in a web
> application. Thus, I submit that it makes for a more useful model for
> desktop applications than for HTTP applications, where the request-
> responsemodel sticks out like a sore thumb.

Well, see, it's not the request-response model that's the problem.  It's the fact that 
browsers _must_ render a new web page when they start a request-response cycle.  
That's the problem.  Oh sure, there are ways around this, but they're all a pain.

We've seen the HTTP request-response model used in a different context:  Web Services. 
 You can have one CF template with as many web service calls as needed, and hey, 
they're each a request-response cycle.  Works great, less filling.

> 
> I'm not sure that this abstraction allows humans to model the 
> world better,
> though; what is the equivalent of a GUI application in the natural 
> world?

None, really.  However, events happen all the time in the real world.  Your car 
explodes.  Frogs fall from the sky.

> > If we consider a web page to be another GUI (which it is), 
> > then it can make sense to have an event model for that page.  
> > It turns out that ASP.NET is not the first to do this.  
> > Netscape, in fact, started it with JavaScript. The 
> > difference being, JavaScript deals with the event on the 
> > client machine. ASP.NET deals with the event on the server.
> 
> Yes, a web page, by itself, can be thought of as a GUI. But 
> there's a
> critical difference between the web page (the stream of HTML that 
> the user
> receives) and the program that generated that page. It's not all 
> of a piece,
> and treating it as if it were may add unnecessary complexity if 
> you already
> know how web programming works.

Well, this is the same case in traditional desktop GUIs as well!  There's absolutely 
no correlation between, say, the code you wrote for a pretty Swing window and the 
pixels that appear on the screen, other than the code that declares it.  The closest 
I've seen to what you describe is MFC, where you actually had to dedicate memory to a 
window, and actually have a command to draw the border, and another to fill the window 
with a blank background, and another to add the title... etc...

> 
> > I find this remarkably handy. I can create a page with a 
> > search interface. I have two search buttons. One uses the 
> > criteria on the page. Another searches everything.
> > 
> > I then click on the search w/ criteria button (the button 
> > raises an event that calls a method). The page does a 
> > search with criteria (the method is run). Now, I click on 
> > the search all button. The page does a search all. Nice and 
> > tidy. No if statements that try to figure out which button 
> > I pressed.
> 
> I frankly don't see this as any simpler than just using the if 
> statement. I
> think that if I were more of a desktop programmer, I'd be all over 
> ASP.NET,though.

I'm not a huge "if" fan when I'm using an OO language.  Anytime I write something like:

if (condition) {
 do this
}else 
{
 do that
} 

I consider it a candidate for refactoring.

> 
> Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
> http://www.figleaf.com/
> voice: (202) 797-5496
> fax: (202) 797-5444
> 
> 
~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4
Subscription: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq

Get the mailserver that powers this list at 
http://www.coolfusion.com

Unsubscribe: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4

RE: Cons to Fusebox (sorry for the double post)

[Sandy Clark]

Sorry for the double post, I tried posting to the list from the HOF web site
and then came home and didn't see it and figured it never got posted.  So I
rewrote and posted again.  Wouldn't you know both of them came through at
the same time. 

-Original Message-
From: Sandy Clark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 3:30 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Cons to Fusebox


Why are you comparing the numbers using a Java Framework to the numbers
using a ColdFusion framework? Isn't that like comparing Appes to Oranges? It
has no meaning.  Does this mean that because there are more Java
Programmers, we should all just stop using CF and move to Java??

Struts is the most popular framework for Java.  It doesn't mean that Struts
can be used in C++ Development, nor does it mean that it can be used in
ColdFusion development (I did read the article on DevNet), but not everyone
is doing cross Java/CFMX development.

Instead compare Apples to Apples.  Compare Struts to something like JADE
(IBM) or Barracuda.  Compare Fusebox to things like BlackBox or
SmartObjects.  

Those are true comparisons I would like to see. 

-Original Message-
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 2:00 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Cons to Fusebox


I saw this thread mentioned on Sean's blog and I was thinking about  
rejoining this list before reading his blog, so here I am. I'm not  
interested in trying to rehash much of the debate since I am late to  
this thread, but I feel like it is important to make at least a couple  
of points.

First, I largely agree with Dave's position in this debate, but I don't  
agree with him in regards to his application of common sense in lieu of  
a framework. I think frameworks are extremely valuable and can make an  
enormous difference in the success of web applications especially where  
more than 3 people on working on them. Of course, picking the wrong  
framework for an application can lead to all sorts of problems, so the  
notion of one framework being the correct one in every case should be  
abandoned.

Second, I have seen numerous references by Fusebox people both in and  
out of this thread in regards to how the sheer number of people using  
Fusebox is an important point. I like to put that into perspective a  
bit. According to Fusebox.org, there are 17756 using Fusebox. Not sure  
where that number comes from, but let's apply that to the number of CF  
developers, which is supposed to be about 300,000. That would mean  
about 6% of CF developers are using Fusebox. Now then, let's assume  
that 6% of Java developers are using Struts. Since there is supposed to  
be about 3,000,000 Java developers that would mean there would be  
180,000 Java developers using Struts.

There are a lot of reasons why one would use Struts over Fusebox and  
vice versa, but if sheer numbers matter to people than Struts is the  
way to go since it is used by a lot more people. BTW, if you don't buy  
the above numbers; take a look at the Amazon.com sales rankings for the  
10+ struts books vs. the Fusebox books.

-Matt

On Friday, July 18, 2003, at 12:27 PM, Erik Yowell wrote:

>>
>> Trade offs. Everything is a trade off. Sometimes the quick,
>> unstructured 'hack' is the right solution...
>>
>
> This for me (being a small shop) is why I've extensively adopted a
> framework like Fusebox. Most of my projects are not going to become an
> Amazon.com anytime soon, while this doesn't mean I should write sloppy
> code - it does allow the flexibility of allowing a bit of a processing
> overhead in lieu of manageability and the ability to bring in external
> talent to easily assist me in changes (if needed) by providing a good
> set of standards and the Fusebox docs. I don't have to spend precious
> time educating another developer on the intricacies of a custom
> framework.
>
> Despite what organizations like Rational think (in the sense that there
> is no such thing as RAD development) - I mean, come on now, how many
> developers out there have had the "I needed it yesterday" conversation
> with a client? I find having the ability to quickly find and make
> changes to medium sized projects, forced structuring of code and
> application processes to be a boon.
>
> Erik Yowell
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.shortfusemedia.com
>
>
> 


~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4
Subscription: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq

Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more 
resources for the community. 
http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm

Unsubscribe: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4

Re: Concatenate results of subquery in select

[Jochem van Dieten]

Mark W. Breneman wrote:
> 
> I hope to get query results like:
> TeacherName   Buildings
> Bob   High School, Middle School, EMC
> Sue   ELC, Middle School
> 
> Here is basically what I am trying to do:
> 
> SELECT TeacherName, (select buildingname from location where teacherID  = 1)
> as Buildings
> FROM Teachers
> 
> But you can not run a subquery that returns more then one value.
> 
> Any Ideas on how to work around this?

If MS SQL Server supports user defined aggregates you should be able to 
define a concatenation aggregate. For an example of how it works in 
PostgreSQL: http://www.zope.org/Members/pupq/pg_in_aggregates

Jochem


~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4
Subscription: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq

Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in 
ColdFusion and related topics. 
http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.cfm

Unsubscribe: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4

Re: Fusebox list

[Chris Montgomery]

To my knowledge, these are the Fusebox lists that are currently active:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fusebox4/
http://www.topica.com/lists/fusebox/prefs/info.html
http://www.topica.com/lists/fbcommunity/prefs/info.html

-- 
Chris Montgomery
Airtight Web Services   http://www.airtightweb.com
Web Development, Web Project Management, Software Sales
210-490-2415
AIM: Airtightweb

~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4
Subscription: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq

Get the mailserver that powers this list at 
http://www.coolfusion.com

Unsubscribe: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4

RE: Cons to Fusebox

[Sandy Clark]

Why are you comparing the numbers using a Java Framework to the numbers
using a ColdFusion framework? Isn't that like comparing Appes to Oranges? It
has no meaning.  Does this mean that because there are more Java
Programmers, we should all just stop using CF and move to Java??

Struts is the most popular framework for Java.  It doesn't mean that Struts
can be used in C++ Development, nor does it mean that it can be used in
ColdFusion development (I did read the article on DevNet), but not everyone
is doing cross Java/CFMX development.

Instead compare Apples to Apples.  Compare Struts to something like JADE
(IBM) or Barracuda.  Compare Fusebox to things like BlackBox or
SmartObjects.  

Those are true comparisons I would like to see. 

-Original Message-
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 2:00 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Cons to Fusebox


I saw this thread mentioned on Sean's blog and I was thinking about  
rejoining this list before reading his blog, so here I am. I'm not  
interested in trying to rehash much of the debate since I am late to  
this thread, but I feel like it is important to make at least a couple  
of points.

First, I largely agree with Dave's position in this debate, but I don't  
agree with him in regards to his application of common sense in lieu of  
a framework. I think frameworks are extremely valuable and can make an  
enormous difference in the success of web applications especially where  
more than 3 people on working on them. Of course, picking the wrong  
framework for an application can lead to all sorts of problems, so the  
notion of one framework being the correct one in every case should be  
abandoned.

Second, I have seen numerous references by Fusebox people both in and  
out of this thread in regards to how the sheer number of people using  
Fusebox is an important point. I like to put that into perspective a  
bit. According to Fusebox.org, there are 17756 using Fusebox. Not sure  
where that number comes from, but let's apply that to the number of CF  
developers, which is supposed to be about 300,000. That would mean  
about 6% of CF developers are using Fusebox. Now then, let's assume  
that 6% of Java developers are using Struts. Since there is supposed to  
be about 3,000,000 Java developers that would mean there would be  
180,000 Java developers using Struts.

There are a lot of reasons why one would use Struts over Fusebox and  
vice versa, but if sheer numbers matter to people than Struts is the  
way to go since it is used by a lot more people. BTW, if you don't buy  
the above numbers; take a look at the Amazon.com sales rankings for the  
10+ struts books vs. the Fusebox books.

-Matt

On Friday, July 18, 2003, at 12:27 PM, Erik Yowell wrote:

>>
>> Trade offs. Everything is a trade off. Sometimes the quick,
>> unstructured 'hack' is the right solution...
>>
>
> This for me (being a small shop) is why I've extensively adopted a
> framework like Fusebox. Most of my projects are not going to become an
> Amazon.com anytime soon, while this doesn't mean I should write sloppy
> code - it does allow the flexibility of allowing a bit of a processing
> overhead in lieu of manageability and the ability to bring in external
> talent to easily assist me in changes (if needed) by providing a good
> set of standards and the Fusebox docs. I don't have to spend precious
> time educating another developer on the intricacies of a custom
> framework.
>
> Despite what organizations like Rational think (in the sense that there
> is no such thing as RAD development) - I mean, come on now, how many
> developers out there have had the "I needed it yesterday" conversation
> with a client? I find having the ability to quickly find and make
> changes to medium sized projects, forced structuring of code and
> application processes to be a boon.
>
> Erik Yowell
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.shortfusemedia.com
>
>
> 

~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4
Subscription: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq

Get the mailserver that powers this list at 
http://www.coolfusion.com

Unsubscribe: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4

RE: Cons to Fusebox

[Mosh Teitelbaum]

Brian:

I appreciate all the effort you've been pouring into this thread.  That
said, allow *me* to back up a bit 8^).

I am familiar with FB3 and have had opportunities to use it and its various
features.  I've also spent some (but not enough) time going over FB4 and I'm
fairly well aware of what new features it brings to the table.  All that
said, I was never actually interested in discussing the pros/cons of Fusebox
(despite the unfortunate email subject).

I was really interested (and still am) in the pros/cons of one aspect of
Fusebox... the controller.  The central index.cfm file that all requests
must pass through.  That said, this thread has become interesting to me in
its own right.

To date, the main and generic points that I've noticed being made in this
thread are, in no particular order:

1) Some people love FB, others hate it, still others don't care, and
everyone
   seems to be very passionate about it all (except maybe for those who
don't
   care).

2) Fusebox doesn't offer anything that can't otherwise be accomplished,
however,
   it essentially prepackages it for you so you don't have to worry about
it.

3) Fusebox offers its own set of advantages and disadvantages (perceived or
   actual) and it's up to the individual developer/architect to determine
   whether or not the tradeoffs make sense for that developer or project.

4) Fusebox does have a learning curve (IMO, a pretty steep one if you want
to
   truly and properly use all that FB offers) but once learned, you're in
   pretty good company (until the next release and then there usually seems
to
   be another learning curve).

5) While I wouldn't call Fusebox the de facto ColdFusion framework (there
are
   too many people/sites not using it for that) it is certainly the most
   popular and used ColdFusion framework out there.

6) Fusebox is not a panacea.  It's just as easy to write crappy code in FB
as
   it is to write crappy code without FB.

>From my own perspective, and arguably for my own personal reasons, Fusebox
tends to be too much for me.  It doesn't overwhelm me, it just offers too
much stuff that I don't feel I need, and doesn't offer other stuff that I do
want.

It also requires a style of managing/writing code that I don't find
beneficial.  I'm willing to be flexible and change my coding style and
mannerisms when I see benefit in doing so but, again for my own reasons, I
don't find FB's way of doing things to be beneficial to what I do.

Finally, FB tends to restrict how projects can be organized.  I don't know
much about FLiP but what I do seems to be impractical for how my own
experiences suggest most projects succeed.  I recognize that any framework
will restrict to some extent how you do what you do, but I find FB's
restrictions to be too restrictive/impractical.

--
Mosh Teitelbaum
evoch, LLC
Tel: (301) 942-5378
Fax: (301) 933-3651
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
WWW: http://www.evoch.com/


> -Original Message-
> From: Brian Kotek [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 10:26 AM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: Cons to Fusebox
>
>
> Mosh, I think we're getting wrapped up too much in specifics.
> Let me back up for a moment.  First, XFA's are not required, only
> suggested.  You can write an entire FB app without a single XFA.
> They just offer some nice benefits, like:
>
> keeping decisions about application flow in the realm of the architect.
> keeping decisions about application flow out of any individual code file.
> allowing you to change at runtime how the application behaves.
> allowing for components that respond differently in different situations.
>
> So, the decision on whether or not to use XFA's is a personal
> one. If you think this is not worth the effort (though in reality
> the effort required is neglegible), then you aren't required to use it.
>
> Regarding reuse and the question of building up end content from
> smaller pieces, this too is a decision, not a requirement.  But
> having the ability to do this by adding a single attribute to an
> XML element is pretty impressive, at least to me.  Let me give a
> more realistic example:
>
> Someone calls the controller to execute the fuseaction
> "store.productDetails".  The store circuit is targeted, and the
> action productDetails is executed.  productDetails is a
> controller-level action so it doesn't do anything itself.
> Instead it invokes a series of actions in the Model and the View
> to complete the user's request.  In this case, it might call the
> model to query for product details, and the view to output those
> product details.  Simple enough so far.  But now...
>
> We take the resulting formatted output and capture it in a
> variable called a content component.  So we have the formatted
> product details wrapped up in a variable.  But why stop there?
> The controller can call more fuseactions in the Model and View,
> maybe to get recently viewed items, items similar to the current
> item being viewed, daily specials, etc.  All 

RE: MSDN on CF -> ASP.net

[Dave Watts]

> There is no such thing as "event driven" programming.
> 
> All event driven programming, everywhere, is fake. It's an 
> abstraction created so that humans can model the world 
> better, and to solve certain problems.

Well, sure, but the illusion seems less illusory on a desktop than in a web
application. Thus, I submit that it makes for a more useful model for
desktop applications than for HTTP applications, where the request-response
model sticks out like a sore thumb.

I'm not sure that this abstraction allows humans to model the world better,
though; what is the equivalent of a GUI application in the natural world?

> If we consider a web page to be another GUI (which it is), 
> then it can make sense to have an event model for that page.  
> It turns out that ASP.NET is not the first to do this.  
> Netscape, in fact, started it with JavaScript. The 
> difference being, JavaScript deals with the event on the 
> client machine. ASP.NET deals with the event on the server.

Yes, a web page, by itself, can be thought of as a GUI. But there's a
critical difference between the web page (the stream of HTML that the user
receives) and the program that generated that page. It's not all of a piece,
and treating it as if it were may add unnecessary complexity if you already
know how web programming works.

> I find this remarkably handy. I can create a page with a 
> search interface. I have two search buttons. One uses the 
> criteria on the page. Another searches everything.
> 
> I then click on the search w/ criteria button (the button 
> raises an event that calls a method). The page does a 
> search with criteria (the method is run). Now, I click on 
> the search all button. The page does a search all. Nice and 
> tidy. No if statements that try to figure out which button 
> I pressed.

I frankly don't see this as any simpler than just using the if statement. I
think that if I were more of a desktop programmer, I'd be all over ASP.NET,
though.

Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
http://www.figleaf.com/
voice: (202) 797-5496
fax: (202) 797-5444

~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4
Subscription: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq

This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for 
dependable ColdFusion Hosting.
http://www.cfhosting.com

Unsubscribe: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4

Cons to Fusebox

[slLists]

Interesting that you are comparing a Java Framework to a ColdFusion framework. Don't 
you think that is comparing Apples to Oranges?  

Within the Java World, Struts is by far the most adapted Framework of its kind.  
Within the ColdFusion world (and I am not just referring to CFMX here). Fusebox is the 
most adapted Framework of its kind.

So don't compare Fusebox with Struts, compare it to BlackBox and SmartObjects.  Those 
are the items within the same realm, just as you would compare Struts to Jade rather 
than comparing Struts to Zope. 

>I saw this thread mentioned on Sean's blog and I was thinking about  
>rejoining this list before reading his blog, so here I am. I'm not  
>interested in trying to rehash much of the debate since I am late to  
>this thread, but I feel like it is important to make at least a couple  
>of points.
>
>First, I largely agree with Dave's position in this debate, but I don't  
>agree with him in regards to his application of common sense in lieu of  
>a framework. I think frameworks are extremely valuable and can make an  
>enormous difference in the success of web applications especially where  
>more than 3 people on working on them. Of course, picking the wrong  
>framework for an application can lead to all sorts of problems, so the  
>notion of one framework being the correct one in every case should be  
>abandoned.
>
>Second, I have seen numerous references by Fusebox people both in and  
>out of this thread in regards to how the sheer number of people using  
>Fusebox is an important point. I like to put that into perspective a  
>bit. According to Fusebox.org, there are 17756 using Fusebox. Not sure  
>where that number comes from, but let's apply that to the number of CF  
>developers, which is supposed to be about 300,000. That would mean  
>about 6% of CF developers are using Fusebox. Now then, let's assume  
>that 6% of Java developers are using Struts. Since there is supposed to  
>be about 3,000,000 Java developers that would mean there would be  
>180,000 Java developers using Struts.
>
>There are a lot of reasons why one would use Struts over Fusebox and  
>vice versa, but if sheer numbers matter to people than Struts is the  
>way to go since it is used by a lot more people. BTW, if you don't buy  
>the above numbers; take a look at the Amazon.com sales rankings for the  
>10+ struts books vs. the Fusebox books.
>
>-Matt
>
>On Friday, July 18, 2003, at 12:27 PM, Erik Yowell wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Trade offs. Everything is a trade off. Sometimes the quick,
>>> unstructured 'hack' is the right solution...
>>>
>>
>> This for me (being a small shop) is why I've extensively adopted a
>> framework like Fusebox. Most of my projects are not going to become an
>> Amazon.com anytime soon, while this doesn't mean I should write sloppy
>> code - it does allow the flexibility of allowing a bit of a processing
>> overhead in lieu of manageability and the ability to bring in external
>> talent to easily assist me in changes (if needed) by providing a good
>> set of standards and the Fusebox docs. I don't have to spend precious
>> time educating another developer on the intricacies of a custom
>> framework.
>>
>> Despite what organizations like Rational think (in the sense that there
>> is no such thing as RAD development) - I mean, come on now, how many
>> developers out there have had the "I needed it yesterday" conversation
>> with a client? I find having the ability to quickly find and make
>> changes to medium sized projects, forced structuring of code and
>> application processes to be a boon.
>>
>> Erik Yowell
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> http://www.shortfusemedia.com
>>
>>
>> 
~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4
Subscription: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq

Get the mailserver that powers this list at 
http://www.coolfusion.com

Unsubscribe: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4

RE: MSDN on CF -> ASP.net

[ksuh]

Let's back up here a bit...

There is no such thing as "event driven" programming.

All event driven programming, everywhere, is fake.  It's an abstraction created so 
that humans can model the world better, and to solve certain problems.

Modern programming depends on events, and cannot survive without it.  Imagine if your 
OS or CPU constantly polled everything that it was responsible for.  Yikes.  That's 
why interrupts were invented.  Your CPU would sit back and do nothing.  Then, things 
would send an interrupt, and your CPU would do the work the interrupt asked for.  This 
model has been extended to the programming world.

The world can be modelled nicely this way.  And, it just so happens that GUIs work 
especially well with events (e.g. the button was "clicked").  Can you wire GUIs in 
other ways?  Of course you can.  But I've seen some _really_ atrocious alternatives - 
like having a main in C with 5000 case/switch statements for every possible menu item. 
 Yum.

If we consider a web page to be another GUI (which it is), then it can make sense to 
have an event model for that page.  It turns out that ASP.NET is not the first to do 
this.  Netscape, in fact, started it with JavaScript.  The difference being, 
JavaScript deals with the event on the client machine.  ASP.NET deals with the event 
on the server.

I find this remarkably handy.  I can create a page with a search interface.  
I have two search buttons.  One uses the criteria on the page.  Another searches 
everything.

I then click on the search w/ criteria button (the button raises an event that calls a 
method).  The page does a search with criteria (the method is run).  Now, I click on 
the search all button.  The page does a search all.  Nice and tidy.  No if statements 
that try to figure out which button I pressed.

- Original Message -
From: Dave Watts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Friday, July 18, 2003 12:37 pm
Subject: RE: RE: MSDN on CF -> ASP.net

> > Anyhow, in terms of ASP.NET and presentation, the event model 
> > exists to make web development closer to traditional 
> > client/server development. The fact that VS.NET works well 
> > with it is a nicety. The event model came first; it does not 
> > exist for an IDE's sake.
> 
> In event-driven GUI environments, it makes sense to write programs 
> thatlisten for events. In environments that don't work that way, 
> it seems to me
> to be a bit odd to wrap the illusion of events around the 
> environment, and
> not too sensible in the absence of an IDE to take advantage of it.
> 
> Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
> http://www.figleaf.com/
> voice: (202) 797-5496
> fax: (202) 797-5444
> 
> 
~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4
Subscription: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq

Get the mailserver that powers this list at 
http://www.coolfusion.com

Unsubscribe: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4

RE: Fire and forget a Stored Procedure

[DURETTE, STEVEN J (AIT)]

WG,

I like the isql idea, but wouldn't that mean that I need the SQL tools
installed on the Web Server?  We have separate SQL and Web servers.

Package? as in DTS?

Any other ideas?

Thanks,
Steve

-Original Message-
From: webguy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 9:26 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Fire and forget a Stored Procedure


There are lots of ways to do this.

One way is to use CFEXECUTE to run isql (look up isql in the SQL books on
line)

or create  a package...


WG



-Original Message-
From: DURETTE, STEVEN J (AIT) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 18 July 2003 13:59
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Fire and forget a Stored Procedure


Hi all,

Just wondering if this is possible (and if so, how to do it)...

We have a stored procedure that is run when a user asks for it.  It doesn't
have a set time, just when the user requests.  Normally I just open query
analyzer (MSSQL 2000 btw) and execute the procedure.

I want to be able to add a link to our site so that the user can click and
it will kick off, the problem is that the procedure takes 1 to 2 hours to
run.  That's a long time to have a browser open and I don't want to do any
changes to our timeouts or use request timeout (long story don't ask).

Is there anyway to do a "Fire and forget"?  I.E. user click the link,
procedure starts, user gets a page stating job is started and the procedure
runs no matter what the user does (close browser, take hammer to
workstation, etc :)

Thanks
*COST SAVINGS SUGGESTION*
For pages that must be printed, change your print settings to print in
"grayscale" instead of color.



Steve Durette
Mgr-Eng. & Const. Systems Support
100 S. Main
Room 314
Mt. Clemens, MI 48043
Ofc: 586.466.7654
Fax: 586.466.1109
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]




~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4
Subscription: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq

Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more 
resources for the community. 
http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm

Unsubscribe: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4