Re: MX Methodologies (Mach2?? Fusebox??)
Of course, if you put it that way, it is better. The fact is actually that no technology will enable a bad programmer to write good code. The fact is also that spaghetti FuseBox and spaghetti OO is worse than anything, and YES, spaghetti Fusebox and spaghetti code under any framework exists as well. While you can always write spaghetti code in a procedural language, object-oriented languages used poorly can add meatballs to your spaghetti. - Andrew Hunt, David Thomas :-))) Massimo Foti DW tools: http://www.massimocorner.com CF tools: http://www.olimpo.ch/tmt/ ~| Special thanks to the CF Community Suite Silver Sponsor - New Atlanta http://www.newatlanta.com Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:185782 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Donations Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
Re: MX Methodologies (Mach2?? Fusebox??)
m all of a sudden I'm hungry for spaghetti bolognese what were we talking about again? :P While you can always write spaghetti code in a procedural language, object-oriented languages used poorly can add meatballs to your spaghetti. - Andrew Hunt, David Thomas :-))) Massimo Foti DW tools: http://www.massimocorner.com CF tools: http://www.olimpo.ch/tmt/ ~| Special thanks to the CF Community Suite Silver Sponsor - New Atlanta http://www.newatlanta.com Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:185821 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Donations Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
Re: MX Methodologies (Mach2?? Fusebox??)
It is a big deal if it made your job easier and your project more successful. My point is that it DOES NOT make my job easy. Apparently, at least for the product I'm thinking of, it made easier for the programmers to make an inefficient system that repeats 5 times the same query in the same page, etc. And it is a commercial product. And no, trying to find my way in a structure that includes 100 templates DOES NOT make my job easier. -- ___ REUSE CODE! Use custom tags; See http://www.contentbox.com/claude/customtags/tagstore.cfm (Please send any spam to this address: [EMAIL PROTECTED]) Thanks. ~| Special thanks to the CF Community Suite Silver Sponsor - New Atlanta http://www.newatlanta.com Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:185660 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Donations Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
Re: MX Methodologies (Mach2?? Fusebox??)
Don't you mean a web page.. when.. someone talks to me about a web application.. i'm more thinking in terms of web services.. There is no difference, a Web application is nothing but a set of Web pages working on some set of data. Hmm.. how about RemoteScripting (JSRS), Flash.. These is on the client side, we are talking about CF on server. I think.. again you are reffering to a CF Web Site.. CF applications.. are little diffrent then.. A CF powered Web site IS a CF Application. -- ___ REUSE CODE! Use custom tags; See http://www.contentbox.com/claude/customtags/tagstore.cfm (Please send any spam to this address: [EMAIL PROTECTED]) Thanks. ~| Special thanks to the CF Community Suite Silver Sponsor - RUWebby http://www.ruwebby.com Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:185661 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.4 Donations Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
Re: MX Methodologies (Mach2?? Fusebox??)
I'm not sure how many times it must be stated in this thread that using a framework will not prevent a bad developer from writing bad code any more than using an OO language like Java can prevent bad code. If this application that you worked on made an inefficient system that duplicates queries then they clearly didn't know what they were doing. Same goes for their use of included files, if the files were not organized well and named appropriately then no framework in the world is going to help. Frameworks exist to make the life of a developer easier, not more difficult. If a framework isn't helping someone do their job, for whatever reason, the answer is simple: don't use one. For me, software engineering is always about learning new things and taking new approaches. The more I learn the better developer I become. From this standpoint, I would say learning OOP, as well as becoming familiar with frameworks, are both very good investments. At best, one may discover some very useful things and add new techniques to their toolkit. At worse, one has added to their knowledge about programming and can now make decisions and assessments when they see other people's code using OOP or frameworks. Either way they benefit. On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 09:56:47 -0500, Claude Schneegans [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It is a big deal if it made your job easier and your project more successful. My point is that it DOES NOT make my job easy. Apparently, at least for the product I'm thinking of, it made easier for the programmers to make an inefficient system that repeats 5 times the same query in the same page, etc. And it is a commercial product. And no, trying to find my way in a structure that includes 100 templates DOES NOT make my job easier. -- ~| Special thanks to the CF Community Suite Gold Sponsor - CFHosting.net http://www.cfhosting.net Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:185662 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Donations Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
Re: MX Methodologies (Mach2?? Fusebox??)
Claude, My question was worded that way due to the way his statement was worded. I was simply curious what he felt was, I was not hinting towards anything with the question just being curious since his statement to me implied that he thought there was a general better solution. I always find Dave's posts interesting and have over the years, has certainly led me to investigate various things on my own to see what they are all about. I agree with most of the points you made in your various emails on this subject. I for one do not try to do OO, FB, Mach-II, or whatever just because I feel it has to be done no matter what the projects needs are. I am always curious as to why people use some of these things and yes I do use some of them sometimes. However usually the reasons I see stated are just the same rehashed reasons and often I wonder if people use them because they are sheep or truely because the reason they gave. BTW, I am a sheep at times so I mean nothing insultive with that comment. :) -- Aaron Rouse http://www.happyhacker.com/ On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 23:01:39 -0500, Claude Schneegans [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Which language do you think is ideal for OO web programming? Now this is a bad question. One should ask Which language is ideal to do what I have to do. OO programming is a tool, not a goal, if it is the best tool, go OO, if something else is better, simpler or whatever, for Christ sake, use it ! ~| Special thanks to the CF Community Suite Silver Sponsor - RUWebby http://www.ruwebby.com Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:185669 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.4 Donations Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
Re: MX Methodologies (Mach2?? Fusebox??)
Claude Schneegans wrote: It is a big deal if it made your job easier and your project more successful. My point is that it DOES NOT make my job easy. Apparently, at least for the product I'm thinking of, it made easier for the programmers to make an inefficient system that repeats 5 times the same query in the same page, etc. And it is a commercial product. And no, trying to find my way in a structure that includes 100 templates DOES NOT make my job easier. I tend to stay out of the fusebox arguments and have since in the inception of FB3, which is frankly a right old mess and deserves the criticism it deserves when, in my opinion (which probably isn't worth a damn), it lost sight one of the original core concepts of Fusebox; readability. It became illegible to the casual code browser and the core code was quite capable of generating spaghetti without adding anything extra to the application. This said, Mach-ii does intrigue me and given appropriate time I will be taking a look at it. This all aside, well a written Fusebox application, whatever version you use be it FB2, xFB, FB3, FB4 or Mach-ii (not strictly FB, but an off-shoot all the same), should NOT call the same query in the same page 5 times. That is just plain bad application design and development and is not a function of Fusebox. Breaking an application into lots of small templates that are only included when required and controlled by conditions is actually very efficient in version of CF prior to CFMX. The reason being that in previous version of CF included files are only ever interpreted when a surrounding condition was found to be true. For example : cfif somecondition cfinclude template=thisfile.cfm cfelse cfinclude template=thatfile.cfm /cfif If somecondition is true then thisfile.cfm is picked up and interpreted, but thatfile.cfm is ignored. If these templates are actually quite large and the code was inline in the condition above, then every single line of code would have to be interpreted, rather than only the code that is required for the given condition. This doesn't forgive bad layout of conditions and poor naming for files, but with readable code, sensible filenames and a fuseaction you should be able to isolate the file you need to one or two files at the most fairly quickly. Unfortunately, FB3 does not lend itself well to this simple concept because it attempts to make life easy for you by allowing you to map circuits in the fbx_Circuits.cfm file and having 300 lines of code in one of 5 files in order to work all that out. I still use an enhanced/extended version of fb2 after all these years. I can go back to an application that I haven't looked at in years or look at any number of applications written by a number of colleagues around the country and within minutes I can follow the code and find the files I need. (I may cringe at some of the code I wrote way-back-when, but that soon repaired if needs be) Anyway, after all that, my point is that your problem with this application that you mention is unlikely to due to the fact that it is a Fusebox framework application and more to do with shoddy workmanship. You should have been able to add a new circuit for your new functionality and simple change a few display templates in order to add the appropriate links to the new actions in your new circuit. Fusebox really is just a simple hub/spoke procedural framework at the end of the day. Other than that, I agree with a lot of what you've said. Other than for code re-use, I still don't quite understand why OO is being forced onto a concept that is inherently procedural. Stephen ~| Special thanks to the CF Community Suite Gold Sponsor - CFHosting.net http://www.cfhosting.net Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:185671 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Donations Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
RE: MX Methodologies (Mach2?? Fusebox??)
Other than for code re-use, I still don't quite understand why OO is being forced onto a concept that is inherently procedural. Forced is a strong word, but probably accurate given the current environment in development today. As people have said, there are situations where it is useful and others where it is most likely overkill. A good example of overkill is when developing a Mom Pop, Inc. web site to sell watermelon lollipops, or a simple content management system for a small business. However, any major web application of significant complexity (valuate that however you will) should be using OO concepts in some degree. My current assignment has me looking over procedural code that was poorly written in 2000 as bad developers were put into a bad situation. Fast forward to 2004 and this code is now a momumental challenge to maintain and extend. Most modules easily reach 300-500 lines of code (sometimes more) and can accomplish several tasks. Tracking down one bug, even for highly skilled developers, can take an entire workday. It would require 8-12 months for a team of 3 or more developers to repurpose this into a manageable and scalable application. As we have heard, examples like this abound (which I still find amazing these days), and the best thing to focus on is writing clean, simple code that is adequately documented and follows industry best practices. ~| Special thanks to the CF Community Suite Silver Sponsor - CFDynamics http://www.cfdynamics.com Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:185676 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Donations Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
Re: MX Methodologies (Mach2?? Fusebox??)
Look, this is all very simple. The best frameworks/methodologies ranked in order are: 1) Mach-II 2) JSF-CF (Java Server Faces for CF) 3) CFOBJECKTS 4) FuseBox 4 5) FuseBox 3 6) MVC-QT (The most RAD environment for making MVC apps) The new MX-XCEL framework and wireframing system should be out in a 0.9 rev after the first of the year. It will set the development world on fire, as it is tied directly to the new event gateway functionality in Blackstone. -- A ~| Special thanks to the CF Community Suite Gold Sponsor - CFHosting.net http://www.cfhosting.net Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:185677 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Donations Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
RE: MX Methodologies (Mach2?? Fusebox??)
Care to provide links for some of those, namely JSF-CF, MVC-QT and MX-XCEL? I couldn't find anything on Google for them. Thanks. -- Damien McKenna - Web Developer - [EMAIL PROTECTED] The Limu Company - http://www.thelimucompany.com/ - 407-804-1014 Why are you wearing that stupid man suit? - Frank ~| Special thanks to the CF Community Suite Gold Sponsor - CFHosting.net http://www.cfhosting.net Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:185679 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.4 Donations Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
Re: MX Methodologies (Mach2?? Fusebox??)
Damien McKenna wrote: Care to provide links for some of those, namely JSF-CF, MVC-QT and MX-XCEL? I couldn't find anything on Google for them. Thanks. Please forgive me. I couldn't resist throwing a bunch of made up frameworks into the mix to fan the flames. The names are pretty good, though, no?! As for the MX-XCEL, it's my own bastardization of Mach-II and an implicit invocation system. Works quite well. I guess I could release the code -- Alex Sherwood ~| Special thanks to the CF Community Suite Silver Sponsor - CFDynamics http://www.cfdynamics.com Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:185702 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.4 Donations Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
Re: MX Methodologies (Mach2?? Fusebox??)
That is so hilarious and I'm being serious not sarcastic at all. Great input as always Alex. On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 11:39:46 -0500, Alex Sherwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Look, this is all very simple. The best frameworks/methodologies ranked in order are: 1) Mach-II 2) JSF-CF (Java Server Faces for CF) 3) CFOBJECKTS 4) FuseBox 4 5) FuseBox 3 6) MVC-QT (The most RAD environment for making MVC apps) The new MX-XCEL framework and wireframing system should be out in a 0.9 rev after the first of the year. It will set the development world on fire, as it is tied directly to the new event gateway functionality in Blackstone. -- A ~| Special thanks to the CF Community Suite Silver Sponsor - CFDynamics http://www.cfdynamics.com Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:185704 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Donations Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
Re: MX Methodologies (Mach2?? Fusebox??)
If you're serious I'm sure numerous people would be interested in looking at it! On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 13:05:40 -0500, Alex Sherwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Damien McKenna wrote: Care to provide links for some of those, namely JSF-CF, MVC-QT and MX-XCEL? I couldn't find anything on Google for them. Thanks. Please forgive me. I couldn't resist throwing a bunch of made up frameworks into the mix to fan the flames. The names are pretty good, though, no?! As for the MX-XCEL, it's my own bastardization of Mach-II and an implicit invocation system. Works quite well. I guess I could release the code -- Alex Sherwood ~| Special thanks to the CF Community Suite Silver Sponsor - RUWebby http://www.ruwebby.com Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:185707 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Donations Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
Re: MX Methodologies (Mach2?? Fusebox??)
Brian Kotek wrote: If you're serious I'm sure numerous people would be interested in looking at it! Unfortunately, it removes much of the proper restrictions in Mach-II (like peeking into the eventQueue, prepeding events, extending the framework iteself) that create the uniformity of the framework. I've chosen to overlook some of the better programming practices enforced by Mach-II - all for the sake of convenience. Maybe over the Christmas break [can I say Christmas, or do I need to say Holiday break? - ;-)] I'll sit down and package it up in a zip file. -- A ~| Special thanks to the CF Community Suite Silver Sponsor - RUWebby http://www.ruwebby.com Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:185708 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.4 Donations Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
Re: MX Methodologies (Mach2?? Fusebox??)
I've worked on precisely zero web apps that didn't have to have functionality added to it. I've worked on precisely zero web apps that didn't have to have maintenance done to it. This is over the course of 7 years. Everything a developer writes can benefit from OO. Does it make apps more maintainable? Sure. Can it make it worse? Sure. Do I have to use my brain cells to make sure it's more maintainable? Yes. Aww heck. I don't even know why I try here. I've never met so many damn IT people that are so unwilling to even try something new and try to at least have an informed opinion, but instead like to criticize something that doesn't fit into their narrow programming view using the usual lame ad hominem and straw man attacks. (this is not directed at you, Steve). Other than for code re-use, I still don't quite understand why OO is being forced onto a concept that is inherently procedural. Forced is a strong word, but probably accurate given the current environment in development today. As people have said, there are situations where it is useful and others where it is most likely overkill. A good example of overkill is when developing a Mom Pop, Inc. web site to sell watermelon lollipops, or a simple content management system for a small business. However, any major web application of significant complexity (valuate that however you will) should be using OO concepts in some degree. My current assignment has me looking over procedural code that was poorly written in 2000 as bad developers were put into a bad situation. Fast forward to 2004 and this code is now a momumental challenge to maintain and extend. Most modules easily reach 300-500 lines of code (sometimes more) and can accomplish several tasks. Tracking down one bug, even for highly skilled developers, can take an entire workday. It would require 8-12 months for a team of 3 or more developers to repurpose this into a manageable and scalable application. As we have heard, examples like this abound (which I still find amazing these days), and the best thing to focus on is writing clean, simple code that is adequately documented and follows industry best practices. ~| Special thanks to the CF Community Suite Silver Sponsor - CFDynamics http://www.cfdynamics.com Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:185713 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Donations Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
RE: MX Methodologies (Mach2?? Fusebox??)
Which language do you think is ideal for OO web programming? I would go with Java or Python, I think. Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ phone: 202-797-5496 fax: 202-797-5444 ~| Special thanks to the CF Community Suite Gold Sponsor - CFHosting.net http://www.cfhosting.net Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:185752 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Donations Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
Re: MX Methodologies (Mach2?? Fusebox??)
Thanks Sean, And thanks to everyone else that has posted in this thread. I really like Fusebox 4, and have been able to start converting my apps to that. Now that I have the hang of that, I am able to at least read the Mach-II code and understand it a little better. Thanks for all the links and info you posted, it's all beginning to make a lot more sense now. I think I might check out the books you recommend on your site. Ali On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 16:56:43 -0400, Ali Awan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm still pretty fuzzy on the whole thing. I still can't figure out how to define listeners and events, in a way that makes sense for the applications I write and work on. Perhaps the story of my migration from FB3 to Mach II will help you? http://www.corfield.org/index.cfm?event=machiirewrite For now I'll probably stick to Fusebox 4, and troll the lists you mentioned to see if I get struck by lightning and it all makes sense to me :) Well, that's certainly a good approach if you're not really comfortable with the whole OO thing... and I think Fusebox 4.1 is a great framework to use, BTW. -- Sean A Corfield -- http://www.corfield.org/ Team Fusebox -- http://www.fusebox.org/ Breeze Me! -- http://www.corfield.org/breezeme Got Gmail? -- I have 1 invite If you're not annoying somebody, you're not really alive. -- Margaret Atwood ~| Special thanks to the CF Community Suite Gold Sponsor - CFHosting.net http://www.cfhosting.net Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:185523 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.4 Donations Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
Re: MX Methodologies (Mach2?? Fusebox??)
It might help to note that many of the same principles of OO development with CFCs can be applied using Fusebox 4 as well as Mach-II. People are starting to build fully abstracted object models with CFCs. When they're built correctly, you can take that object model and use it with Mach-II or Fusebox 4 (or both) without much effort. The only thing that changes is the bridge between the framework and the object model. In Mach-II, this bridge is the Listener. In Fusebox, it is often a set of application-scoped manager CFCs that take calls from the framework and feed them to your business model CFCs. I guess the point is, you can start honing your OO skills within Fusebox 4 and then whenever you feel like it give Mach-II a try. On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 10:32:40 -0400, Ali Awan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks Sean, And thanks to everyone else that has posted in this thread. I really like Fusebox 4, and have been able to start converting my apps to that. Now that I have the hang of that, I am able to at least read the Mach-II code and understand it a little better. Thanks for all the links and info you posted, it's all beginning to make a lot more sense now. I think I might check out the books you recommend on your site. Ali On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 16:56:43 -0400, Ali Awan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm still pretty fuzzy on the whole thing. I still can't figure out how to define listeners and events, in a way that makes sense for the applications I write and work on. Perhaps the story of my migration from FB3 to Mach II will help you? http://www.corfield.org/index.cfm?event=machiirewrite For now I'll probably stick to Fusebox 4, and troll the lists you mentioned to see if I get struck by lightning and it all makes sense to me :) Well, that's certainly a good approach if you're not really comfortable with the whole OO thing... and I think Fusebox 4.1 is a great framework to use, BTW. -- Sean A Corfield -- http://www.corfield.org/ Team Fusebox -- http://www.fusebox.org/ Breeze Me! -- http://www.corfield.org/breezeme Got Gmail? -- I have 1 invite If you're not annoying somebody, you're not really alive. -- Margaret Atwood ~| Special thanks to the CF Community Suite Gold Sponsor - CFHosting.net http://www.cfhosting.net Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:185524 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Donations Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
Re: MX Methodologies (Mach2?? Fusebox??)
Did you check out the OnTap framework? http://www.fusiontap.com/docs/index.cfm Ali Awan wrote: Thanks Sean, And thanks to everyone else that has posted in this thread. I really like Fusebox 4, and have been able to start converting my apps to that. Now that I have the hang of that, I am able to at least read the Mach-II code and understand it a little better. Thanks for all the links and info you posted, it's all beginning to make a lot more sense now. I think I might check out the books you recommend on your site. Ali ~| Special thanks to the CF Community Suite Gold Sponsor - CFHosting.net http://www.cfhosting.net Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:185525 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Donations Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
Re: MX Methodologies (Mach2?? Fusebox??)
I only feel it's my duty to mention that you can still develop CF Apps in a timely menner without the use of FB or MACH II that do utilize proper OO techniques... and that perform better, as well. I don't want to open a can of worms here, but thought I'd point it out. ~Simon Simon Horwith Member of Team Macromedia Macromedia Certified Master Instructor Editor-in-Chief, ColdFusion Developers Journal Blog - http://www.horwith.com Brian Kotek wrote: It might help to note that many of the same principles of OO development with CFCs can be applied using Fusebox 4 as well as Mach-II. People are starting to build fully abstracted object models with CFCs. When they're built correctly, you can take that object model and use it with Mach-II or Fusebox 4 (or both) without much effort. The only thing that changes is the bridge between the framework and the object model. In Mach-II, this bridge is the Listener. In Fusebox, it is often a set of application-scoped manager CFCs that take calls from the framework and feed them to your business model CFCs. I guess the point is, you can start honing your OO skills within Fusebox 4 and then whenever you feel like it give Mach-II a try. On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 10:32:40 -0400, Ali Awan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks Sean, And thanks to everyone else that has posted in this thread. I really like Fusebox 4, and have been able to start converting my apps to that. Now that I have the hang of that, I am able to at least read the Mach-II code and understand it a little better. Thanks for all the links and info you posted, it's all beginning to make a lot more sense now. I think I might check out the books you recommend on your site. Ali On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 16:56:43 -0400, Ali Awan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm still pretty fuzzy on the whole thing. I still can't figure out how to define listeners and events, in a way that makes sense for the applications I write and work on. Perhaps the story of my migration from FB3 to Mach II will help you? http://www.corfield.org/index.cfm?event=machiirewrite For now I'll probably stick to Fusebox 4, and troll the lists you mentioned to see if I get struck by lightning and it all makes sense to me :) Well, that's certainly a good approach if you're not really comfortable with the whole OO thing... and I think Fusebox 4.1 is a great framework to use, BTW. -- Sean A Corfield -- http://www.corfield.org/ Team Fusebox -- http://www.fusebox.org/ Breeze Me! -- http://www.corfield.org/breezeme Got Gmail? -- I have 1 invite If you're not annoying somebody, you're not really alive. -- Margaret Atwood ~| Special thanks to the CF Community Suite Gold Sponsor - CFHosting.net http://www.cfhosting.net Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:185529 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.4 Donations Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
Re: MX Methodologies (Mach2?? Fusebox??)
Naturally, as with any programming decision there is a tradeoff. In my experience, unless you have a very specific performance requirement, the benefits of a framework in terms of maintainability, standardization, and team development outweigh the very small performance hit. That said, of course Simon is correct. A well-designed object model will work just fine with Fusebox, Mach-II, some other framework, or no framework at all. On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 16:55:03 +, Simon Horwith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I only feel it's my duty to mention that you can still develop CF Apps in a timely menner without the use of FB or MACH II that do utilize proper OO techniques... and that perform better, as well. I don't want to open a can of worms here, but thought I'd point it out. ~Simon Simon Horwith Member of Team Macromedia Macromedia Certified Master Instructor Editor-in-Chief, ColdFusion Developers Journal Blog - http://www.horwith.com Brian Kotek wrote: It might help to note that many of the same principles of OO development with CFCs can be applied using Fusebox 4 as well as Mach-II. People are starting to build fully abstracted object models with CFCs. When they're built correctly, you can take that object model and use it with Mach-II or Fusebox 4 (or both) without much effort. The only thing that changes is the bridge between the framework and the object model. In Mach-II, this bridge is the Listener. In Fusebox, it is often a set of application-scoped manager CFCs that take calls from the framework and feed them to your business model CFCs. I guess the point is, you can start honing your OO skills within Fusebox 4 and then whenever you feel like it give Mach-II a try. On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 10:32:40 -0400, Ali Awan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks Sean, And thanks to everyone else that has posted in this thread. I really like Fusebox 4, and have been able to start converting my apps to that. Now that I have the hang of that, I am able to at least read the Mach-II code and understand it a little better. Thanks for all the links and info you posted, it's all beginning to make a lot more sense now. I think I might check out the books you recommend on your site. Ali On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 16:56:43 -0400, Ali Awan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm still pretty fuzzy on the whole thing. I still can't figure out how to define listeners and events, in a way that makes sense for the applications I write and work on. Perhaps the story of my migration from FB3 to Mach II will help you? http://www.corfield.org/index.cfm?event=machiirewrite For now I'll probably stick to Fusebox 4, and troll the lists you mentioned to see if I get struck by lightning and it all makes sense to me :) Well, that's certainly a good approach if you're not really comfortable with the whole OO thing... and I think Fusebox 4.1 is a great framework to use, BTW. -- Sean A Corfield -- http://www.corfield.org/ Team Fusebox -- http://www.fusebox.org/ Breeze Me! -- http://www.corfield.org/breezeme Got Gmail? -- I have 1 invite If you're not annoying somebody, you're not really alive. -- Margaret Atwood ~| Special thanks to the CF Community Suite Gold Sponsor - CFHosting.net http://www.cfhosting.net Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:185532 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Donations Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
Re: MX Methodologies (Mach2?? Fusebox??)
I agree On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 16:55:03 +, Simon Horwith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I only feel it's my duty to mention that you can still develop CF Apps in a timely menner without the use of FB or MACH II that do utilize proper OO techniques... and that perform better, as well. I don't want to open a can of worms here, but thought I'd point it out. ~Simon Simon Horwith Member of Team Macromedia Macromedia Certified Master Instructor Editor-in-Chief, ColdFusion Developers Journal Blog - http://www.horwith.com Brian Kotek wrote: It might help to note that many of the same principles of OO development with CFCs can be applied using Fusebox 4 as well as Mach-II. People are starting to build fully abstracted object models with CFCs. When they're built correctly, you can take that object model and use it with Mach-II or Fusebox 4 (or both) without much effort. The only thing that changes is the bridge between the framework and the object model. In Mach-II, this bridge is the Listener. In Fusebox, it is often a set of application-scoped manager CFCs that take calls from the framework and feed them to your business model CFCs. I guess the point is, you can start honing your OO skills within Fusebox 4 and then whenever you feel like it give Mach-II a try. On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 10:32:40 -0400, Ali Awan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks Sean, And thanks to everyone else that has posted in this thread. I really like Fusebox 4, and have been able to start converting my apps to that. Now that I have the hang of that, I am able to at least read the Mach-II code and understand it a little better. Thanks for all the links and info you posted, it's all beginning to make a lot more sense now. I think I might check out the books you recommend on your site. Ali On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 16:56:43 -0400, Ali Awan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm still pretty fuzzy on the whole thing. I still can't figure out how to define listeners and events, in a way that makes sense for the applications I write and work on. Perhaps the story of my migration from FB3 to Mach II will help you? http://www.corfield.org/index.cfm?event=machiirewrite For now I'll probably stick to Fusebox 4, and troll the lists you mentioned to see if I get struck by lightning and it all makes sense to me :) Well, that's certainly a good approach if you're not really comfortable with the whole OO thing... and I think Fusebox 4.1 is a great framework to use, BTW. -- Sean A Corfield -- http://www.corfield.org/ Team Fusebox -- http://www.fusebox.org/ Breeze Me! -- http://www.corfield.org/breezeme Got Gmail? -- I have 1 invite If you're not annoying somebody, you're not really alive. -- Margaret Atwood ~| Special thanks to the CF Community Suite Gold Sponsor - CFHosting.net http://www.cfhosting.net Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:185533 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Donations Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
Re: MX Methodologies (Mach2?? Fusebox??)
Simon, Thanks for your input. I do believe you are right. However, the company I work for is looking to adopt a widely used methodology, so that we can implement some sort of best practices and maintain consistency amongst our developers and applications. Since I was familiar with Fusebox that seemed the natural way for me to go, and then I took a look at Mach-II and that seemed even better. Then my next logical step was to get familiar with them as much as possible and see which one to adopt and then start converting our CF5 apps over. So I turned to my respected friends an colleagues on this list to aid me in this endeavor :) So far I am quite pleased at how this discussion is turning out. Cheers! I only feel it's my duty to mention that you can still develop CF Apps in a timely menner without the use of FB or MACH II that do utilize proper OO techniques... and that perform better, as well. I don't want to open a can of worms here, but thought I'd point it out. ~Simon Simon Horwith Member of Team Macromedia Macromedia Certified Master Instructor Editor-in-Chief, ColdFusion Developers Journal Blog - http://www.horwith.com Brian Kotek wrote: ~| Special thanks to the CF Community Suite Gold Sponsor - CFHosting.net http://www.cfhosting.net Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:185534 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Donations Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
Re: MX Methodologies (Mach2?? Fusebox??)
Naturally, as with any programming decision there is a tradeoff. In my experience, unless you have a very specific performance requirement, the benefits of a framework in terms of maintainability, standardization, and team development outweigh the very small performance hit. That said, of course Simon is correct. A well-designed object model will work just fine with Fusebox, Mach-II, some other framework, or no framework at all. On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 16:55:03 +, Simon Horwith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I only feel it's my duty to mention that you can still develop CF Apps in a timely menner without the use of FB or MACH II that do utilize proper OO techniques... and that perform better, as well. I don't want to open a can of worms here, but thought I'd point it out. ~Simon ~| Special thanks to the CF Community Suite Gold Sponsor - CFHosting.net http://www.cfhosting.net Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:185535 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Donations Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
Re: MX Methodologies (Mach2?? Fusebox??)
Sorry for the duplicate post...the listserver scolded me for not trimming previous replies so I thought the message hadn't gone through. On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 12:15:55 -0500, Brian Kotek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Naturally, as with any programming decision there is a tradeoff. In my experience, unless you have a very specific performance requirement, the benefits of a framework in terms of maintainability, standardization, and team development outweigh the very small performance hit. That said, of course Simon is correct. A well-designed object model will work just fine with Fusebox, Mach-II, some other framework, or no framework at all. ~| Special thanks to the CF Community Suite Gold Sponsor - CFHosting.net http://www.cfhosting.net Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:185536 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Donations Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
Re: MX Methodologies (Mach2?? Fusebox??)
Are you converting them to just learn the methodology so that you can apply it to new applications or for some other reason? Just curious as to why the need to convert already running applications. -- Aaron Rouse http://www.happyhacker.com/ On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 12:22:15 -0400, Ali Awan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Then my next logical step was to get familiar with them as much as possible and see which one to adopt and then start converting our CF5 apps over. So I turned to my respected friends an colleagues on this list to aid me in this endeavor :) ~| Special thanks to the CF Community Suite Gold Sponsor - CFHosting.net http://www.cfhosting.net Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:185542 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Donations Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
Re: MX Methodologies (Mach2?? Fusebox??)
But I though FuseBox 4 and FuseDoc files were supposed to make your apps faster, particularly because you put your queries in a file that ends with .QRY. Not to mention putting your HTML in .DSP files..this will really start to heat up the compartmentalization factor in your application architecture. -- Alex Simon Horwith wrote: I only feel it's my duty to mention that you can still develop CF Apps in a timely menner without the use of FB or MACH II that do utilize proper OO techniques... and that perform better, as well. I don't want to open a can of worms here, but thought I'd point it out. ~Simon Simon Horwith Member of Team Macromedia Macromedia Certified Master Instructor Editor-in-Chief, ColdFusion Developers Journal Blog - http://www.horwith.com ~| Special thanks to the CF Community Suite Gold Sponsor - CFHosting.net http://www.cfhosting.net Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:185550 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.4 Donations Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
Re: MX Methodologies (Mach2?? Fusebox??)
I don't find MachII in the least bit un-performant. I also have a very large FB4 that runs hunky dory as well. I'd love to see some proof of your claims. I only feel it's my duty to mention that you can still develop CF Apps in a timely menner without the use of FB or MACH II that do utilize proper OO techniques... and that perform better, as well. I don't want to open a can of worms here, but thought I'd point it out. ~Simon Simon Horwith Member of Team Macromedia Macromedia Certified Master Instructor Editor-in-Chief, ColdFusion Developers Journal Blog - http://www.horwith.com Brian Kotek wrote: ~| Special thanks to the CF Community Suite Gold Sponsor - CFHosting.net http://www.cfhosting.net Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:185554 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Donations Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
Re: MX Methodologies (Mach2?? Fusebox??)
that you can still develop CF Apps in a timely menner without the use of FB or MACH II that do utilize proper OO techniques... and that perform better, as well. Exact, and I would even add that utilises NO OO technique, and it will even be faster to develop, and perform even better. I recently had to add some features in a FB application, it was including more than 100 files and it took me hours to find the one I had to modify to do the job. This is how a good willing concept is finally having the oposite result it is intended to. -- ___ REUSE CODE! Use custom tags; See http://www.contentbox.com/claude/customtags/tagstore.cfm (Please send any spam to this address: [EMAIL PROTECTED]) Thanks. ~| Special thanks to the CF Community Suite Gold Sponsor - CFHosting.net http://www.cfhosting.net Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:185558 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Donations Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
Re: MX Methodologies (Mach2?? Fusebox??)
I've had to add features to a regular CF app that took me DAYS, because the idiots that made it couldn't code to save their lives. This is how a good willing concept is finally having the oposite result it is intended to. that you can still develop CF Apps in a timely menner without the use of FB or MACH II that do utilize proper OO techniques... and that perform better, as well. Exact, and I would even add that utilises NO OO technique, and it will even be faster to develop, and perform even better. I recently had to add some features in a FB application, it was including more than 100 files and it took me hours to find the one I had to modify to do the job. This is how a good willing concept is finally having the oposite result it is intended to. -- ___ REUSE CODE! Use custom tags; See http://www.contentbox.com/claude/customtags/tagstore.cfm (Please send any spam to this address: [EMAIL PROTECTED]) Thanks. ~| Special thanks to the CF Community Suite Gold Sponsor - CFHosting.net http://www.cfhosting.net Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:185559 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Donations Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
RE: MX Methodologies (Mach2?? Fusebox??)
Well, everyone is entitled to their opinion, but a good, solid, well-designed object oriented methodology will always beat spaghetti code. FuseBox is a methodology, but it is not OO. Let's be clear on that point. -Original Message- From: Claude Schneegans [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 29, 2004 1:50 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: MX Methodologies (Mach2?? Fusebox??) that you can still develop CF Apps in a timely menner without the use of FB or MACH II that do utilize proper OO techniques... and that perform better, as well. Exact, and I would even add that utilises NO OO technique, and it will even be faster to develop, and perform even better. I recently had to add some features in a FB application, it was including more than 100 files and it took me hours to find the one I had to modify to do the job. This is how a good willing concept is finally having the oposite result it is intended to. -- ~| Special thanks to the CF Community Suite Gold Sponsor - CFHosting.net http://www.cfhosting.net Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:185560 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.4 Donations Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
Re: MX Methodologies (Mach2?? Fusebox??)
That may be your opinion, but the stark reality is that object-orientation has taken over the vast majority of the programming world. In my opinion, not embracing this change is basically career suicide. On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 13:49:30 -0500, Claude Schneegans [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Exact, and I would even add that utilises NO OO technique, and it will even be faster to develop, and perform even better. On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 13:49:30 -0500, Claude Schneegans [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: that you can still develop CF Apps in a timely menner without the use of FB or MACH II that do utilize proper OO techniques... and that perform better, as well. Exact, and I would even add that utilises NO OO technique, and it will even be faster to develop, and perform even better. I recently had to add some features in a FB application, it was including more than 100 files and it took me hours to find the one I had to modify to do the job. This is how a good willing concept is finally having the oposite result it is intended to. -- ___ REUSE CODE! Use custom tags; See http://www.contentbox.com/claude/customtags/tagstore.cfm (Please send any spam to this address: [EMAIL PROTECTED]) Thanks. ~| Special thanks to the CF Community Suite Gold Sponsor - CFHosting.net http://www.cfhosting.net Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:185562 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Donations Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
Re: MX Methodologies (Mach2?? Fusebox??)
Idiots can make anything hard to change though. We have our own framework here, I hate dealing with it but I also understand the reasonings behind having it. There have been times when I had to go in and resolve something someone else was attempting to do and it took me hours or even days to get the task done and all because idiots were in it prior. -- Aaron Rouse http://www.happyhacker.com/ On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 13:56:37 -0400, Kwang Suh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've had to add features to a regular CF app that took me DAYS, because the idiots that made it couldn't code to save their lives. ~| Special thanks to the CF Community Suite Gold Sponsor - CFHosting.net http://www.cfhosting.net Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:185566 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.4 Donations Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
Re: MX Methodologies (Mach2?? Fusebox??)
I'd call Fusebox a framework more than a methodology (FLiP is the methodology commonly used to support Fusebox projects). And while the framework code itself is not OO (where Mach-II is), you can easily build CFC-based object models that fully follow OO principles and leverage them in a Fusebox application. On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 10:57:45 -0800, Steve Brownlee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, everyone is entitled to their opinion, but a good, solid, well-designed object oriented methodology will always beat spaghetti code. FuseBox is a methodology, but it is not OO. Let's be clear on that point. ~| Special thanks to the CF Community Suite Gold Sponsor - CFHosting.net http://www.cfhosting.net Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:185567 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.4 Donations Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
RE: MX Methodologies (Mach2?? Fusebox??)
I recently had to add some features in a FB application, it was including more than 100 files and it took me hours to find the one I had to modify to do the job. I took over several FB3 apps and I must say that it has made my life much easier that they were developed using a simple framework like Fusebox than if it had been a random-bunch-of-files. Just my experience. -- Damien McKenna - Web Developer - [EMAIL PROTECTED] The Limu Company - http://www.thelimucompany.com/ - 407-804-1014 Why are you wearing that stupid man suit? - Frank ~| Special thanks to the CF Community Suite Gold Sponsor - CFHosting.net http://www.cfhosting.net Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:185571 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Donations Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
Re: MX Methodologies (Mach2?? Fusebox??)
Well, we're not necessarily going to convert all our applications. I am learning the methodology, so that we have consistency in our apps and a best practices in place. I would like to use the methodology on all future apps. I may convert one or two to get a better handle on the methodology. But ideally I would prefer to learn it before I start coding. Are you converting them to just learn the methodology so that you can apply it to new applications or for some other reason? Just curious as to why the need to convert already running applications. -- Aaron Rouse http://www.happyhacker.com/ On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 12:22:15 -0400, Ali Awan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Then my next logical step was to get familiar with them as much as possible and see which one to adopt and then start converting our CF5 apps over. So I turned to my respected friends an colleagues on this list to aid me in this endeavor :) ~| Special thanks to the CF Community Suite Gold Sponsor - CFHosting.net http://www.cfhosting.net Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:185574 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Donations Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
Re: MX Methodologies (Mach2?? Fusebox??)
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 10:57:45 -0800, Steve Brownlee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, everyone is entitled to their opinion, but a good, solid, well-designed object oriented methodology will always beat spaghetti code. FuseBox is a methodology, but it is not OO. Let's be clear on that point. As Brian already pointed out, Fusebox (small 'b', by the way) is not a methodology, it is a framework. There is a methodology associated with it, called FLiP. Mind you, quite a bit of FLiP is actually framework-neutral... As a huge fan of OO - I've been doing it for nearly thirteen years now - I would also reiterate Brian's point that you can definitely use Fusebox with a full-blown OO Model as part of an MVC-based application. I'll be talking at several conferences and user groups in 2005 on the subject of frameworks - comparing Fusebox 4.x and Mach II. -- Sean A Corfield -- http://www.corfield.org/ Team Fusebox -- http://www.fusebox.org/ Breeze Me! -- http://www.corfield.org/breezeme Got Gmail? -- I have 1 invite If you're not annoying somebody, you're not really alive. -- Margaret Atwood ~| Special thanks to the CF Community Suite Gold Sponsor - CFHosting.net http://www.cfhosting.net Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:185585 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Donations Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
Re: MX Methodologies (Mach2?? Fusebox??)
And you have hit upon the true issue: When it comes to CF, almost 100% of the maintanance problems with an app are a result of the people that wrote it. This is actually the case with many modern languages (I'll exempt C++ - it's a major knives and daggers language). Blaming a framework is rather short sighted. As an example, I once worked with someone that loved to name his JavaScript functions x, y and z. When he had more than three functions on a page, he'd name then x1, x2, xx, etc. Lovely. I especially enjoyed when he'd do stuff like: x = x(); y = z(); xx1 = x2(); Now then, is that the fault of JavaScript, or the idiot programmer (I use that word loosely in his case)? Obviously, it was him. To blame the language is disingeneous. Same with blaming certain frameworks. Idiots can make anything hard to change though. We have our own framework here, I hate dealing with it but I also understand the reasonings behind having it. There have been times when I had to go in and resolve something someone else was attempting to do and it took me hours or even days to get the task done and all because idiots were in it prior. -- Aaron Rouse http://www.happyhacker.com/ On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 13:56:37 -0400, Kwang Suh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've had to add features to a regular CF app that took me DAYS, because the idiots that made it couldn't code to save their lives. ~| Special thanks to the CF Community Suite Gold Sponsor - CFHosting.net http://www.cfhosting.net Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:185586 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.4 Donations Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
RE: MX Methodologies (Mach2?? Fusebox??)
https://sourceforge.net/projects/cfobjects/ Since we're on the topic, talk of cfObjects is rarely mentioned anymore. I still use it for every major web application I build because it works for me. Version 4.0 of the package was just released with a new Dreamweaver toolbar, class/method wizards, and some other performance enhancements. It certainly doesn't get the marketing blitz and big-name support that FB and MachII get, but it still delivers and is easy to set up and maintain. I know that since the most recent CF server technologies use CFCs, that cfObjects may seem redundant, but with the extras that it gives you that CFCs don't support yet, I still think it's worth using. My 2 cents. -Original Message- From: Kwang Suh [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 29, 2004 2:47 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: MX Methodologies (Mach2?? Fusebox??) And you have hit upon the true issue: When it comes to CF, almost 100% of the maintanance problems with an app are a result of the people that wrote it. This is actually the case with many modern languages (I'll exempt C++ - it's a major knives and daggers language). Blaming a framework is rather short sighted. As an example, I once worked with someone that loved to name his JavaScript functions x, y and z. When he had more than three functions on a page, he'd name then x1, x2, xx, etc. Lovely. I especially enjoyed when he'd do stuff like: x = x(); y = z(); xx1 = x2(); Now then, is that the fault of JavaScript, or the idiot programmer (I use that word loosely in his case)? Obviously, it was him. To blame the language is disingeneous. Same with blaming certain frameworks. ~| Special thanks to the CF Community Suite Silver Sponsor - CFDynamics http://www.cfdynamics.com Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:185595 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.4 Donations Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
RE: MX Methodologies (Mach2?? Fusebox??)
Well, everyone is entitled to their opinion, but a good, solid, well-designed object oriented methodology will always beat spaghetti code. Well, everyone is entitled to their opinion, but this is an absurd comparison. Spaghetti code will always be beaten by anything else - it doesn't have to be a well-designed object-oriented methodology; it can simply be a well-structured procedural application. Likewise, the use of an object-oriented methodology doesn't guarantee you won't have obtuse and unmaintainable code. The plain fact is, many web applications are simple enough and small enough not to require anything beyond some defined, application-specific structure and organization. Many well-written web applications are procedural, rather than object-oriented, and CF is the ideal language for writing web applications if you're satisfied with procedural programming. I'm not so sure it's the ideal language for OO web programming. Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ phone: 202-797-5496 fax: 202-797-5444 ~| Special thanks to the CF Community Suite Gold Sponsor - CFHosting.net http://www.cfhosting.net Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:185607 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.4 Donations Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
Re: MX Methodologies (Mach2?? Fusebox??)
I haven't written a simple, small web app in about 5 years. I'd love to go back to a simple, page based framework, but fact is, I'd being myself, my fellow programmers and my clients a disservice by doing that. I use Fusebox and MachII because I don't want to write my own framework. I certainly could, and maybe one day I will, but right now I'm too lazy. I'd rather solve business problems than to come up with some way of managing layouts in an app. As with any and all frameworks, there will be some compromise. Having said that, I haven't been truly satisfied with either Fusebox or MachII, and I find that ASP.NET's page controller structure works better than either, and Java with Struts is also quite manageable. Well, everyone is entitled to their opinion, but a good, solid, well-designed object oriented methodology will always beat spaghetti code. Well, everyone is entitled to their opinion, but this is an absurd comparison. Spaghetti code will always be beaten by anything else - it doesn't have to be a well-designed object-oriented methodology; it can simply be a well-structured procedural application. Likewise, the use of an object-oriented methodology doesn't guarantee you won't have obtuse and unmaintainable code. The plain fact is, many web applications are simple enough and small enough not to require anything beyond some defined, application-specific structure and organization. Many well-written web applications are procedural, rather than object-oriented, and CF is the ideal language for writing web applications if you're satisfied with procedural programming. I'm not so sure it's the ideal language for OO web programming. Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ phone: 202-797-5496 fax: 202-797-5444 ~| Special thanks to the CF Community Suite Silver Sponsor - CFDynamics http://www.cfdynamics.com Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:185608 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.4 Donations Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
Re: MX Methodologies (Mach2?? Fusebox??)
Which language do you think is ideal for OO web programming? -- Aaron Rouse http://www.happyhacker.com/ On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 18:23:13 -0500, Dave Watts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, everyone is entitled to their opinion, but a good, solid, well-designed object oriented methodology will always beat spaghetti code. Well, everyone is entitled to their opinion, but this is an absurd comparison. Spaghetti code will always be beaten by anything else - it doesn't have to be a well-designed object-oriented methodology; it can simply be a well-structured procedural application. Likewise, the use of an object-oriented methodology doesn't guarantee you won't have obtuse and unmaintainable code. The plain fact is, many web applications are simple enough and small enough not to require anything beyond some defined, application-specific structure and organization. Many well-written web applications are procedural, rather than object-oriented, and CF is the ideal language for writing web applications if you're satisfied with procedural programming. I'm not so sure it's the ideal language for OO web programming. Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ phone: 202-797-5496 fax: 202-797-5444 ~| Special thanks to the CF Community Suite Gold Sponsor - CFHosting.net http://www.cfhosting.net Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:185617 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.4 Donations Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
Re: MX Methodologies (Mach2?? Fusebox??)
That may be your opinion, No, it's my experience. but the stark reality is that object-orientation has taken over the vast majority of the programming world. This is the problem: people do OO because it is a la mode, not because it is useful. Using a framework IS good WHEN it is useful. For simple programming projects it is a useless hassle. And most of CF project are just simple trivial projects that do not require things like OO or FB or anything like that. In the project I worked, the home page includes more than 100 files, makes about 50 queries, but only about 12 different queries, some are repeated more than 5 times!!! BUT it is Fusebox and OOP ! Big deal ! ;-)) If you're not a good programmer, these techniques won't make you any better, If you're a good programmer, you know when it is better to use them or better not to use them. -- ___ REUSE CODE! Use custom tags; See http://www.contentbox.com/claude/customtags/tagstore.cfm (Please send any spam to this address: [EMAIL PROTECTED]) Thanks. ~| Special thanks to the CF Community Suite Silver Sponsor - CFDynamics http://www.cfdynamics.com Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:185619 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.4 Donations Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
Re: MX Methodologies (Mach2?? Fusebox??)
solid, well-designed object oriented methodology will always beat spaghetti code. Of course, if you put it that way, it is better. The fact is actually that no technology will enable a bad programmer to write good code. The fact is also that spaghetti FuseBox and spaghetti OO is worse than anything, and YES, spaghetti Fusebox and spaghetti code under any framework exists as well. -- ___ REUSE CODE! Use custom tags; See http://www.contentbox.com/claude/customtags/tagstore.cfm (Please send any spam to this address: [EMAIL PROTECTED]) Thanks. ~| Special thanks to the CF Community Suite Silver Sponsor - New Atlanta http://www.newatlanta.com Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:185620 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.4 Donations Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
Re: MX Methodologies (Mach2?? Fusebox??)
much easier that they were developed using a simple framework like Fusebox than if it had been a random-bunch-of-files. Why a random-bunch-of-files? An application is not just a random-bunch-of-files if it is not FB ;-) Not FB does not mean anarchy. -- ___ REUSE CODE! Use custom tags; See http://www.contentbox.com/claude/customtags/tagstore.cfm (Please send any spam to this address: [EMAIL PROTECTED]) Thanks. ~| Special thanks to the CF Community Suite Silver Sponsor - New Atlanta http://www.newatlanta.com Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:185621 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Donations Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
Re: MX Methodologies (Mach2?? Fusebox??)
object-oriented methodology doesn't guarantee you won't have obtuse and unmaintainable code. Absolutely. The problem is that many programmers wont learn programming, then just learn how to use a framework and they beleive they know programming, just because they use a framework the result is actually spaghetti framework ;-) Many well-written web applications are procedural, rather than object-oriented, and CF is the ideal language for writing web applications if you're satisfied with procedural programming. I'm not so sure it's the ideal language for OO web programming. Exact, there is nothing more procedural than a Web application: There is ONE request to a server for a page from a user, and ONE answer from the server to the user. Now, if some want absolutely to see Objects or even EVENTS there, well good for them if it can make them happy ;-) But the fact is that any CF page is nothing but ONE call to a procedure, and a CF application is nothing else than a bunch of pages. -- ___ REUSE CODE! Use custom tags; See http://www.contentbox.com/claude/customtags/tagstore.cfm (Please send any spam to this address: [EMAIL PROTECTED]) Thanks. ~| Special thanks to the CF Community Suite Silver Sponsor - RUWebby http://www.ruwebby.com Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:185622 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.4 Donations Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
Re: MX Methodologies (Mach2?? Fusebox??)
Which language do you think is ideal for OO web programming? Now this is a bad question. One should ask Which language is ideal to do what I have to do. OO programming is a tool, not a goal, if it is the best tool, go OO, if something else is better, simpler or whatever, for Christ sake, use it ! -- ___ REUSE CODE! Use custom tags; See http://www.contentbox.com/claude/customtags/tagstore.cfm (Please send any spam to this address: [EMAIL PROTECTED]) Thanks. ~| Special thanks to the CF Community Suite Gold Sponsor - CFHosting.net http://www.cfhosting.net Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:185625 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Donations Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
Re: MX Methodologies (Mach2?? Fusebox??)
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 22:34:16 -0500, Claude Schneegans [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That may be your opinion, No, it's my experience. I'm assuming that your opinion is based on experience. but the stark reality is that object-orientation has taken over the vast majority of the programming world. This is the problem: people do OO because it is a la mode, not because it is useful. Using a framework IS good WHEN it is useful. For simple programming projects it is a useless hassle. And most of CF project are just simple trivial projects that do not require things like OO or FB or anything like that. Of course people should not use OO techniques (or a framework for that matter) if it is not useful for their project. I'm not talking about trivial projects, I'm talking about huge projects with tens of thousands of lines of code that take months or years to develop. These are the sorts of projects I work on and in these situations frameworks and OO techniques are a significant help. In the project I worked, the home page includes more than 100 files, makes about 50 queries, but only about 12 different queries, some are repeated more than 5 times!!! BUT it is Fusebox and OOP ! Big deal ! ;-)) It is a big deal if it made your job easier and your project more successful. ~| Special thanks to the CF Community Suite Gold Sponsor - CFHosting.net http://www.cfhosting.net Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:185626 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.4 Donations Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
Re: MX Methodologies (Mach2?? Fusebox??)
Exact, there is nothing more procedural than a Web application: Don't you mean a web page.. when.. someone talks to me about a web application.. i'm more thinking in terms of web services.. There is ONE request to a server for a page from a user, and ONE answer from the server to the user. Hmm.. how about RemoteScripting (JSRS), Flash.. Now, if some want absolutely to see Objects or even EVENTS there, well good for them if it can make them happy ;-) But the fact is that any CF page is nothing but ONE call to a procedure, and a CF application is nothing else than a bunch of pages. I think.. again you are reffering to a CF Web Site.. CF applications.. are little diffrent then.. CF powered web sites/pages.. -- Umer Farooq Octadyne Systems [EMAIL PROTECTED] +1 (519) 772-5424 voice +1 (519) 635-2795 mobile +1 (208) 275-3824 fax LOOKING FOR A USED CAR IN IOWA VISIT: http://www.IowaMotors.com WARNING: --- The information contained in this document and attachments is confidential and intended only for the person(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or any other use of the information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this document by mistake, please notify the sender immediately and destroy this document and attachments without making any copy of any kind. ~| Special thanks to the CF Community Suite Silver Sponsor - New Atlanta http://www.newatlanta.com Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:185630 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Donations Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
RE: MX Methodologies (Mach2?? Fusebox??)
Read ... that's not the point which is Simon trying to make. He notices, the advantages of using a framework (organizing files, separating types of files, reusing your code) measure up against the disadvantages of not using a framework. For most CF developers frameworks like Mach II and FuseBox please use it, so I will never have to find my way through 9 lines of scrambled fuzzy code, so I can actually make changes without breaking 99% of all functionality. ;) Micha Schopman Software Engineer Modern Media, Databankweg 12 M, 3821 AL Amersfoort Tel 033-4535377, Fax 033-4535388 KvK Amersfoort 39081679, Rabo 39.48.05.380 ~| Special thanks to the CF Community Suite Silver Sponsor - New Atlanta http://www.newatlanta.com Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:185635 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Donations Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
Re: MX Methodologies (Mach2?? Fusebox??)
On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 16:56:43 -0400, Ali Awan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm still pretty fuzzy on the whole thing. I still can't figure out how to define listeners and events, in a way that makes sense for the applications I write and work on. Perhaps the story of my migration from FB3 to Mach II will help you? http://www.corfield.org/index.cfm?event=machiirewrite For now I'll probably stick to Fusebox 4, and troll the lists you mentioned to see if I get struck by lightning and it all makes sense to me :) Well, that's certainly a good approach if you're not really comfortable with the whole OO thing... and I think Fusebox 4.1 is a great framework to use, BTW. -- Sean A Corfield -- http://www.corfield.org/ Team Fusebox -- http://www.fusebox.org/ Breeze Me! -- http://www.corfield.org/breezeme Got Gmail? -- I have 1 invite If you're not annoying somebody, you're not really alive. -- Margaret Atwood ~| Special thanks to the CF Community Suite Gold Sponsor - CFHosting.net http://www.cfhosting.net Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:184942 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Donations Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
Re: MX Methodologies (Mach2?? Fusebox??)
Thanks Mike and Doug, for pointing me in the right direction. I'm still pretty fuzzy on the whole thing. I still can't figure out how to define listeners and events, in a way that makes sense for the applications I write and work on. For now I'll probably stick to Fusebox 4, and troll the lists you mentioned to see if I get struck by lightning and it all makes sense to me :) I mean I understand the MVC concepts and OO programming in theory, just not the practical uses of it, vis a vis mach-ii and CF. Thanks anyway, Ali I was wondering if anyone on here has had any experience upgrading their CF apps (pre-MX) to the Mach2 framework? If so, how would you advise someone who was attempting to upgrade an app written for CF 5.0 to Mach2. (I'm upgrading to MX also, obviously). I have seen examples of Mach2, like Shopping Cart apps, etc. This seems to work nicely when there are clearly defined objects, events, etc. But as most of us know, not all Cold Fusion or web apps can be neatly organized into objects, events etc. Anyway, I just wanted to start a discussion, to see if anyone else has converted an app that wasn't as clearly defined as a shopping cart, to Mach2 and what advise they may have, or what pitfalls they encountered. Additionally in some cases is it better just to stick with the Fusebox framework on MX? Thanks, Ali ~| Special thanks to the CF Community Suite Gold Sponsor - CFHosting.net http://www.cfhosting.net Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:184821 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.4 Donations Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
RE: MX Methodologies (Mach2?? Fusebox??)
From: Ali Awan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Thanks Mike and Doug, for pointing me in the right direction. I'm still pretty fuzzy on the whole thing. I still can't figure out how to define listeners and events, in a way that makes sense for the applications I write and work on. For now I'll probably stick to Fusebox 4, and troll the lists you mentioned to see if I get struck by lightning and it all makes sense to me :) I mean I understand the MVC concepts and OO programming in theory, just not the practical uses of it, vis a vis mach-ii and CF. Thanks anyway, Ali Keep at it and ask lots of questions. I haven't met anyone on any of the lists who isn't more than happy to explain concepts, share some insight into best practices, or even share some example code. Start out small with a basic application Model it out. Ask questions about your model and architecture and go from there. When jumping into CFCs, I started out with a simple application which I called Contact Manager which was nothing more than a big rolodex. It will click sooner or later for you... Just keep at it. Are you on the CFCDev list? Listen in there for insight as well as the forums previously mentioned. Good luck! Mike ~| Special thanks to the CF Community Suite Gold Sponsor - CFHosting.net http://www.cfhosting.net Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:184822 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.4 Donations Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
MX Methodologies (Mach2?? Fusebox??)
I was wondering if anyone on here has had any experience upgrading their CF apps (pre-MX) to the Mach2 framework? If so, how would you advise someone who was attempting to upgrade an app written for CF 5.0 to Mach2. (I'm upgrading to MX also, obviously). I have seen examples of Mach2, like Shopping Cart apps, etc. This seems to work nicely when there are clearly defined objects, events, etc. But as most of us know, not all Cold Fusion or web apps can be neatly organized into objects, events etc. Anyway, I just wanted to start a discussion, to see if anyone else has converted an app that wasn't as clearly defined as a shopping cart, to Mach2 and what advise they may have, or what pitfalls they encountered. Additionally in some cases is it better just to stick with the Fusebox framework on MX? Thanks, Ali ~| Special thanks to the CF Community Suite Gold Sponsor - CFHosting.net http://www.cfhosting.net Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:184639 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.4 Donations Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
Re: MX Methodologies (Mach2?? Fusebox??)
I'd head over to mach-ii.com and mach-ii.info. mach-ii.info has info on signing up for the mach-ii list. I just started wrapping my head around mach-ii, its not the framework that's the difficulty really, its re-training ur head to think more OO then the old spaghetti. Doug On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 14:00:54 -0400, Ali Awan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I was wondering if anyone on here has had any experience upgrading their CF apps (pre-MX) to the Mach2 framework? If so, how would you advise someone who was attempting to upgrade an app written for CF 5.0 to Mach2. (I'm upgrading to MX also, obviously). I have seen examples of Mach2, like Shopping Cart apps, etc. This seems to work nicely when there are clearly defined objects, events, etc. But as most of us know, not all Cold Fusion or web apps can be neatly organized into objects, events etc. Anyway, I just wanted to start a discussion, to see if anyone else has converted an app that wasn't as clearly defined as a shopping cart, to Mach2 and what advise they may have, or what pitfalls they encountered. Additionally in some cases is it better just to stick with the Fusebox framework on MX? Thanks, Ali ~| Special thanks to the CF Community Suite Gold Sponsor - CFHosting.net http://www.cfhosting.net Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:184649 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.4 Donations Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
RE: MX Methodologies (Mach2?? Fusebox??)
You might want to subscribe to the MachII mailing list. You should also subscribe to the CFC mailing list. The CFC list is at http:www.cfczone.org/. There has been some recent dicussion about validation and design patterns that may help you with a methodology. M!ke -Original Message- From: Ali Awan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2004 12:01 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: MX Methodologies (Mach2?? Fusebox??) I was wondering if anyone on here has had any experience upgrading their CF apps (pre-MX) to the Mach2 framework? If so, how would you advise someone who was attempting to upgrade an app written for CF 5.0 to Mach2. (I'm upgrading to MX also, obviously). I have seen examples of Mach2, like Shopping Cart apps, etc. This seems to work nicely when there are clearly defined objects, events, etc. But as most of us know, not all Cold Fusion or web apps can be neatly organized into objects, events etc. Anyway, I just wanted to start a discussion, to see if anyone else has converted an app that wasn't as clearly defined as a shopping cart, to Mach2 and what advise they may have, or what pitfalls they encountered. Additionally in some cases is it better just to stick with the Fusebox framework on MX? Thanks, Ali ~| Special thanks to the CF Community Suite Gold Sponsor - CFHosting.net http://www.cfhosting.net Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:184683 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.4 Donations Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
