Re: FBX3 AND CFMX
On Wednesday, Feb 26, 2003, at 11:57 US/Pacific, John Quarto-vonTivadar wrote: > actually in Fusebox 4 you will be able to extend the core quite easily > using > "plugins". That's great news - I think that was the part of Hal's FBMX preview that I liked best of all (I'm a big fan of "pluggable" frameworks, having used Smalltalk as well as template-driven programming in other languages). 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: FBX3 AND CFMX
This book has an excellent focus on FBX3, there are some really good techniques in it that I would never have thought of for code reuse. Especially the dynamic "caller." scope used for queries that enables you to use them through the standard method or recursively using CFMODULE, that was cool. With regards to Discovering CFC's does this book focus on using with the FBX architecture, I'm wondering I have Ben Fortas Advanced CFMX Application Development, which also focus's on CFC's, any reason why I should get it? J -Original Message- From: Kevin Langevin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 26 February 2003 21:06 To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: FBX3 AND CFMX Coderutters: Discovering Fusebox 3 with ColdFusion by Hal Helms & John Quarto-vonTivadar is excellent. ISBN: 0972078630 -Original Message- From: Thane Sherrington [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 3:37 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: FBX3 AND CFMX At 02:57 PM 2/26/03 -0500, John Quarto-vonTivadar wrote: >So it is with Fusebox. Just like with English, it can only help you to >learn it, since it becomes just one more skill in your arsenal. Ok, I'm sold. Where can I get a good book on it? T ~| 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. Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
Re: FBX3 AND CFMX
On Wednesday, Feb 26, 2003, at 13:14 US/Pacific, Michael Wilson wrote: > Try Discovering Fusebox 3 with ColdFusion: > http://www.techspedition.com/store/moreinfo.cfm?Product_ID=1 Or Jeff & Nat's book, reviewed in some detail here: http://www.corfield.org/index.php?fuseaction=coldfusion.fusebook Yes, my site is built using Fusebox 3 despite my past criticisms of it. And as I say here: http://www.corfield.org/index.php?fuseaction=coldfusion.fusebox "[Fusebox] is very helpful for developers that do not have a software engineering background: it emphasizes and strongly encourages separation of presentation from logic and uses a readily understandable idiom for modeling websites" 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 Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
RE: Re: FBX3 AND CFMX
All these are great books and I would read them in this order to get the most benefit IMHO "Discovering Fusebox" "Jeff Peters and Nat Papovich book " "Discovering CFCs" Original Message --- > >So it is with Fusebox. Just like with English, it can only help you to > >learn it, since it becomes just one more skill in your arsenal. > > Ok, I'm sold. Where can I get a good book on it? (hmm, I'm wondering if you're joshing me or if you're really asking about a book on Fusebox!! :) Just in case it's the latter... of course there is the Jeff Peters and Nat Papovich book published through NewRiders for entirely vested interest reasons, though, and clearly I'm not in a position to be neutral, the best book ever written on Fusebox -- yea, the best book ever written, period, never mind that long-winded "The Bible" tome which can be summarized fairly easily with Fusebox as "index.cfm?fuseaction=genesis.firstDay" anyway -- who says Fusebox is not a religion? -- I'd be a fool not to mention the book that Hal and I wrote , "Discovering Fusebox" which you can get at Amazon.com or save a few bucks by clicking here: www.techspedition.com/store and using coupon code "LearnFusebox" we also wrote an eWorkbook that has 70-odd example exercises that you can work through as you're reading the book to self-test your knowledge By the way, Techspedition also has the only book on the market devoted specifically to CFCs, also with an accompanying eWorkbook. Same URL. ~| 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. Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
Re: FBX3 AND CFMX
> >So it is with Fusebox. Just like with English, it can only help you to > >learn it, since it becomes just one more skill in your arsenal. > > Ok, I'm sold. Where can I get a good book on it? (hmm, I'm wondering if you're joshing me or if you're really asking about a book on Fusebox!! :) Just in case it's the latter... of course there is the Jeff Peters and Nat Papovich book published through NewRiders for entirely vested interest reasons, though, and clearly I'm not in a position to be neutral, the best book ever written on Fusebox -- yea, the best book ever written, period, never mind that long-winded "The Bible" tome which can be summarized fairly easily with Fusebox as "index.cfm?fuseaction=genesis.firstDay" anyway -- who says Fusebox is not a religion? -- I'd be a fool not to mention the book that Hal and I wrote , "Discovering Fusebox" which you can get at Amazon.com or save a few bucks by clicking here: www.techspedition.com/store and using coupon code "LearnFusebox" we also wrote an eWorkbook that has 70-odd example exercises that you can work through as you're reading the book to self-test your knowledge By the way, Techspedition also has the only book on the market devoted specifically to CFCs, also with an accompanying eWorkbook. Same URL. ~| 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: FBX3 AND CFMX
Hi, Try Discovering Fusebox 3 with ColdFusion: http://www.techspedition.com/store/moreinfo.cfm?Product_ID=1 Best regards, MW -Original Message- From: Thane Sherrington [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Ok, I'm sold. Where can I get a good book on it? ~| 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: FBX3 AND CFMX
Coderutters: Discovering Fusebox 3 with ColdFusion by Hal Helms & John Quarto-vonTivadar is excellent. ISBN: 0972078630 -Original Message- From: Thane Sherrington [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 3:37 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: FBX3 AND CFMX At 02:57 PM 2/26/03 -0500, John Quarto-vonTivadar wrote: >So it is with Fusebox. Just like with English, it can only help you to >learn it, since it becomes just one more skill in your arsenal. Ok, I'm sold. Where can I get a good book on it? T ~| 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 Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
RE: Re: FBX3 AND CFMX
On a recent large FB project we were able to add 3 non CF developers and an experienced FB developer with little pain because those who did not know CF found the logical framework very understandable. We rolled out the most successful Enterprise app that company had ever experienced and I love the fact we could walk-away at the end knowing that the app can be understood and maintained. Kind Regards - Mike Brunt Original Message --- > Or if you're a larger shop that has a vested interest in a "secret" > methodology -- much like the people of Florence at one time gave > Michaelangelo's David a FigLeaf, which only serves to create interest in > what is covered up-- then any open publically known framework, Fusebox or > otherwise, has to be spun a certain way since the heart of the business > centers on one's "secret sauce". Amusing, but I would have to point out that for most of the people on the list, the most striking attribute of the "larger shop" you're taking a swipe at is not secrecy, but on the contrary, the generosity & open-ness of some of its personnel. I suspect that the " heart of the business" for them centres, rather more prosaically, on knowing their trade remarkably well. Nick ~| 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: FBX3 AND CFMX
> Or if you're a larger shop that has a vested interest in a "secret" > methodology -- much like the people of Florence at one time gave > Michaelangelo's David a FigLeaf, which only serves to create interest in > what is covered up-- then any open publically known framework, Fusebox or > otherwise, has to be spun a certain way since the heart of the business > centers on one's "secret sauce". Amusing, but I would have to point out that for most of the people on the list, the most striking attribute of the "larger shop" you're taking a swipe at is not secrecy, but on the contrary, the generosity & open-ness of some of its personnel. I suspect that the " heart of the business" for them centres, rather more prosaically, on knowing their trade remarkably well. Nick ~| 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: FBX3 AND CFMX
At 02:57 PM 2/26/03 -0500, John Quarto-vonTivadar wrote: >So it is with Fusebox. Just like with English, it can only help you to >learn it, since it becomes just one more skill in your arsenal. Ok, I'm sold. Where can I get a good book on it? T ~| 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: Re: FBX3 AND CFMX
John, fabulous email, thanks. Kind Regards - Mike Brunt Original Message --- > Bastardized fusebox is simply that -- bastardized fusebox. It's sort of > saying the application is "sort of MVC" or that the database is "sort of > backed up" -- it is or it isn't. well that's like CFC being "sort of" OO, now isn't it? :) > thus there's no way to maintain and extend a single core. > Instead, each developer does their own thing. > actually in Fusebox 4 you will be able to extend the core quite easily using "plugins". And you will also pick your choice of cores so that the end results in CF or PHP or ASP etc. > That said, I'll reemphasize that it's easier to big a decent methodology of > the shelf and get the project done instead of trying to build your own. FB3 > is a great contribution to CF for that reason alone. > One of the key points to Fusebox that was overlooked in the last few days -- and I was surprised at this since Andrew was a great example of the point -- is that Fusebox doesn't try to be "better" than some framework that an individual developer like him could do. It's neither better nor worse, just an agreed upon way of doing things. In fact, for his projects his own framework is likely better since he's so familiar with it (which also explains why there isn't a pressing need for him to learn Fusebox). But the missed point is that his skillset, as tied to his own framework, is highly limiting his opportunities to work with other people, because now they have a learning curve of learning "his" framework, or he theirs. Now, again, if you run your own shop and have a handful of people that work for you, then you might not need this at all. Perfect! If that is all you want to do, then you're absolutely correct that that is all you need. Or if you're a larger shop that has a vested interest in a "secret" methodology -- much like the people of Florence at one time gave Michaelangelo's David a FigLeaf, which only serves to create interest in what is covered up-- then any open publically known framework, Fusebox or otherwise, has to be spun a certain way since the heart of the business centers on one's "secret sauce". Being the owner of several patented processes, I can confirm that is just as legitimate a business concern as any other. But in much larger organizations -- some recent "convertees" to Fusebox among our own clients include Dell Computers, UPS, the Perth Mint, and the the Canadian government's Natural Resources division -- the payoff of Fusebox is tremendous -- the organization gets a known standard framework (notice I'm not saying a known "standard", but a known "standard framework"). When they hire someone who knows Fusebox then they know they are getting someone who does pretty darn close to what they already do -- so that new hire will be able to get up to speed much quicker. And for developers, learning Fusebox is a highly portable investment -- not only can they use it for their "own" projects but they can work on other outside projects without learning something totally new nor have to deliver projects done in a 'proprietary' framework that the client has no idea how to maintain and they can leverage the time they've spent investing in Fusebox for multiple purposes. Not a bad idea during a recession. Finally to the end-customer, Fusebox also has advantages: they aren't tied to maintaining their code only with the people who wrote it. They spend less money doing the maintenance because it's based on some publically known framework. They spend less money getting projects developed because they can compare bids as apples-to-apples when it's based on a common framework especially when combined with Persuasive Architecture. The idea is less that of a religion -- despite the sometimes over-zelaous claims of some Fusebox adherents that it will cure everything including the common cold -- and more of an "agreement to agree", a "lingua franca" if you will. You know, English is not the perfect language -- it spells poorly relative to its pronounciation (linguists call that "poor phonography" which sounds too close to "see teens get it on with farm animals" to ever be used in the mainstream, ha ha). On the other hand, Hungarian, which has good phonography, is a very nice language and if I were a native Hungarian speaker I'd probably love to speak it with my parents and with friends. Yet, if I wanted to get along in the world, esp today's world of business and technology, I would be crazy not to learn English. Does that make English "better"? Depends on the metric. Do people have their own ways to speaking English? Yes, just ask any Australian or fan of "The Sopranos." Is there any quasi-central body for promoting a "standard English" . Kinda -- but in the end people pretty much talk any way they like. So it is with Fusebox. Just like with English, it can only help you to learn it, since it becomes just one more skill in your arsenal. ~
Re: FBX3 AND CFMX
Umm fusebox will cure you cold, you didnt get the Memo? - Original Message - From: "John Quarto-vonTivadar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 2:57 PM Subject: Re: FBX3 AND CFMX > Bastardized fusebox is simply that -- bastardized fusebox. It's sort of > saying the application is "sort of MVC" or that the database is "sort of > backed up" -- it is or it isn't. well that's like CFC being "sort of" OO, now isn't it? :) > thus there's no way to maintain and extend a single core. > Instead, each developer does their own thing. > actually in Fusebox 4 you will be able to extend the core quite easily using "plugins". And you will also pick your choice of cores so that the end results in CF or PHP or ASP etc. > That said, I'll reemphasize that it's easier to big a decent methodology of > the shelf and get the project done instead of trying to build your own. FB3 > is a great contribution to CF for that reason alone. > One of the key points to Fusebox that was overlooked in the last few days -- and I was surprised at this since Andrew was a great example of the point -- is that Fusebox doesn't try to be "better" than some framework that an individual developer like him could do. It's neither better nor worse, just an agreed upon way of doing things. In fact, for his projects his own framework is likely better since he's so familiar with it (which also explains why there isn't a pressing need for him to learn Fusebox). But the missed point is that his skillset, as tied to his own framework, is highly limiting his opportunities to work with other people, because now they have a learning curve of learning "his" framework, or he theirs. Now, again, if you run your own shop and have a handful of people that work for you, then you might not need this at all. Perfect! If that is all you want to do, then you're absolutely correct that that is all you need. Or if you're a larger shop that has a vested interest in a "secret" methodology -- much like the people of Florence at one time gave Michaelangelo's David a FigLeaf, which only serves to create interest in what is covered up-- then any open publically known framework, Fusebox or otherwise, has to be spun a certain way since the heart of the business centers on one's "secret sauce". Being the owner of several patented processes, I can confirm that is just as legitimate a business concern as any other. But in much larger organizations -- some recent "convertees" to Fusebox among our own clients include Dell Computers, UPS, the Perth Mint, and the the Canadian government's Natural Resources division -- the payoff of Fusebox is tremendous -- the organization gets a known standard framework (notice I'm not saying a known "standard", but a known "standard framework"). When they hire someone who knows Fusebox then they know they are getting someone who does pretty darn close to what they already do -- so that new hire will be able to get up to speed much quicker. And for developers, learning Fusebox is a highly portable investment -- not only can they use it for their "own" projects but they can work on other outside projects without learning something totally new nor have to deliver projects done in a 'proprietary' framework that the client has no idea how to maintain and they can leverage the time they've spent investing in Fusebox for multiple purposes. Not a bad idea during a recession. Finally to the end-customer, Fusebox also has advantages: they aren't tied to maintaining their code only with the people who wrote it. They spend less money doing the maintenance because it's based on some publically known framework. They spend less money getting projects developed because they can compare bids as apples-to-apples when it's based on a common framework especially when combined with Persuasive Architecture. The idea is less that of a religion -- despite the sometimes over-zelaous claims of some Fusebox adherents that it will cure everything including the common cold -- and more of an "agreement to agree", a "lingua franca" if you will. You know, English is not the perfect language -- it spells poorly relative to its pronounciation (linguists call that "poor phonography" which sounds too close to "see teens get it on with farm animals" to ever be used in the mainstream, ha ha). On the other hand, Hungarian, which has good phonography, is a very nice language and if I were a native Hungarian speaker I'd probably love to speak it with my parents and with friends. Yet, if I wanted to get along in the world, esp today's world of business and technology,
Re: FBX3 AND CFMX
> Bastardized fusebox is simply that -- bastardized fusebox. It's sort of > saying the application is "sort of MVC" or that the database is "sort of > backed up" -- it is or it isn't. well that's like CFC being "sort of" OO, now isn't it? :) > thus there's no way to maintain and extend a single core. > Instead, each developer does their own thing. > actually in Fusebox 4 you will be able to extend the core quite easily using "plugins". And you will also pick your choice of cores so that the end results in CF or PHP or ASP etc. > That said, I'll reemphasize that it's easier to big a decent methodology of > the shelf and get the project done instead of trying to build your own. FB3 > is a great contribution to CF for that reason alone. > One of the key points to Fusebox that was overlooked in the last few days -- and I was surprised at this since Andrew was a great example of the point -- is that Fusebox doesn't try to be "better" than some framework that an individual developer like him could do. It's neither better nor worse, just an agreed upon way of doing things. In fact, for his projects his own framework is likely better since he's so familiar with it (which also explains why there isn't a pressing need for him to learn Fusebox). But the missed point is that his skillset, as tied to his own framework, is highly limiting his opportunities to work with other people, because now they have a learning curve of learning "his" framework, or he theirs. Now, again, if you run your own shop and have a handful of people that work for you, then you might not need this at all. Perfect! If that is all you want to do, then you're absolutely correct that that is all you need. Or if you're a larger shop that has a vested interest in a "secret" methodology -- much like the people of Florence at one time gave Michaelangelo's David a FigLeaf, which only serves to create interest in what is covered up-- then any open publically known framework, Fusebox or otherwise, has to be spun a certain way since the heart of the business centers on one's "secret sauce". Being the owner of several patented processes, I can confirm that is just as legitimate a business concern as any other. But in much larger organizations -- some recent "convertees" to Fusebox among our own clients include Dell Computers, UPS, the Perth Mint, and the the Canadian government's Natural Resources division -- the payoff of Fusebox is tremendous -- the organization gets a known standard framework (notice I'm not saying a known "standard", but a known "standard framework"). When they hire someone who knows Fusebox then they know they are getting someone who does pretty darn close to what they already do -- so that new hire will be able to get up to speed much quicker. And for developers, learning Fusebox is a highly portable investment -- not only can they use it for their "own" projects but they can work on other outside projects without learning something totally new nor have to deliver projects done in a 'proprietary' framework that the client has no idea how to maintain and they can leverage the time they've spent investing in Fusebox for multiple purposes. Not a bad idea during a recession. Finally to the end-customer, Fusebox also has advantages: they aren't tied to maintaining their code only with the people who wrote it. They spend less money doing the maintenance because it's based on some publically known framework. They spend less money getting projects developed because they can compare bids as apples-to-apples when it's based on a common framework especially when combined with Persuasive Architecture. The idea is less that of a religion -- despite the sometimes over-zelaous claims of some Fusebox adherents that it will cure everything including the common cold -- and more of an "agreement to agree", a "lingua franca" if you will. You know, English is not the perfect language -- it spells poorly relative to its pronounciation (linguists call that "poor phonography" which sounds too close to "see teens get it on with farm animals" to ever be used in the mainstream, ha ha). On the other hand, Hungarian, which has good phonography, is a very nice language and if I were a native Hungarian speaker I'd probably love to speak it with my parents and with friends. Yet, if I wanted to get along in the world, esp today's world of business and technology, I would be crazy not to learn English. Does that make English "better"? Depends on the metric. Do people have their own ways to speaking English? Yes, just ask any Australian or fan of "The Sopranos." Is there any quasi-central body for promoting a "standard English" . Kinda -- but in the end people pretty much talk any way they like. So it is with Fusebox. Just like with English, it can only help you to learn it, since it becomes just one more skill in your arsenal. ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_list
RE: CFCs's aren't that bad, was RE: FBX3 AND CFMX
Sean, quick response as I am on my way out. The reason we initially pursued the replacement of Fuses with CFC's is that it makes very intuitive sense in some sort of Segue from FB3 to whatever FBMX becomes using CFC's sooner or later. Our view from here is from the standpoint of a company actively involved in developing FB - CF apps on a daily basis rather than from a theoretical-visionary standpoint. IMHO the core file in FB30 is one of the most elegant and intuitively usable pieces of CF code I have ever seen and it works very efficiently. Finding a good reason the recreate that is going to be difficult. I also think we are in a very different world with regard to what can be done in CFMX with more native support and manipulation of XML and the greater ease in creating and consuming web services. (And this was a quick response!) Kind Regards - Mike Brunt Webapper Services LLC Web Site http://www.webapper.com Blog http://www.webapper.net Webapper -Original Message- From: Sean A Corfield [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 5:31 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: CFCs's aren't that bad, was RE: FBX3 AND CFMX On Monday, Feb 24, 2003, at 18:27 US/Pacific, Mike Brunt wrote: > So we would have something to distribute we > finished the re write of the sample FB30 app "Taskmanager" using CFC's, > mainly as replacements for fuses (with the exception of display fuses). That's interesting... Hal was pursuing an approach where fuses stayed exactly the same as in FB3 but the core became CFC based with an interesting plug-in architecture. I was very impressed with where he was going with that (hence my disappointment with the recent comments here in this thread). > So far I like CFC's no doubt they are not truly OO in the purest sense > but > they do bring some sort of order and possible sort-of methodology to > CF. Yes, and I think they've been implemented in a way that matches CFML's core concepts pretty well (better than they match Java's core concepts, for example, which I think is part of the disquiet and confusion about CFCs). > will continue to work on Taskmanager and use some of Hal's theories as > mentioned by Sean and I agree with Sean here I do not see CFC's as > such a > bad thing and I have no doubts they will mature with time. Cool... I'd be very interested in working with you (offlist) to see where we might go with this. I'd obviously like to see Fusebox embrace CFCs... 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 This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for dependable ColdFusion Hosting. Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
Re: CFCs's aren't that bad, was RE: FBX3 AND CFMX
On Monday, Feb 24, 2003, at 18:27 US/Pacific, Mike Brunt wrote: > So we would have something to distribute we > finished the re write of the sample FB30 app "Taskmanager" using CFC's, > mainly as replacements for fuses (with the exception of display fuses). That's interesting... Hal was pursuing an approach where fuses stayed exactly the same as in FB3 but the core became CFC based with an interesting plug-in architecture. I was very impressed with where he was going with that (hence my disappointment with the recent comments here in this thread). > So far I like CFC's no doubt they are not truly OO in the purest sense > but > they do bring some sort of order and possible sort-of methodology to > CF. Yes, and I think they've been implemented in a way that matches CFML's core concepts pretty well (better than they match Java's core concepts, for example, which I think is part of the disquiet and confusion about CFCs). > will continue to work on Taskmanager and use some of Hal's theories as > mentioned by Sean and I agree with Sean here I do not see CFC's as > such a > bad thing and I have no doubts they will mature with time. Cool... I'd be very interested in working with you (offlist) to see where we might go with this. I'd obviously like to see Fusebox embrace CFCs... 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 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: FBX3 AND CFMX (CFC Problems?)
Since Hal, John and some other people here have found problems with CFC's. Can you guys please share the problems that you are aware of regarding CFC's? This would be very helpful. Appreciate it. Joe Eugene > -Original Message- > From: Nick de Voil [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 3:09 AM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: Re: FBX3 AND CFMX > > > John > > > To answer your question, our thinking is as follows: CFCs are not ready > for > > the big time. > > > > The reasons why have been discussed and debated for literally months by > tons > > of people on the various lists. > > All the same, would you mind just giving a summary - for those > of us who've > missed those discussions? > > Thanks > > Nick > > > > ~| 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: FBX3 AND CFMX
John > To answer your question, our thinking is as follows: CFCs are not ready for > the big time. > > The reasons why have been discussed and debated for literally months by tons > of people on the various lists. All the same, would you mind just giving a summary - for those of us who've missed those discussions? Thanks Nick ~| 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 Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
RE: FBX3 AND CFMX
Six million hits per day I've heard.
==
Peter Tilbrook
Internet Applications Developer
Australian Building Codes Board
GPO Box 9839
CANBERRA ACT 2601
AUSTRALIA
WWW: http://www.abcb.gov.au/
E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Telephone: +61 (02) 6213 6731
Mobile: 0439 401 823
Facsimile: +61 (02) 6213 7287
-Original Message-
From: Mike Brunt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, 25 February 2003 4:45 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: FBX3 AND CFMX
I have a question for Sean, how much of MM's web site is running on CFMX
using CFCs? I imagine that is a reasonable yardstick, as MM's site must be
fairly busy.
Kind Regards - Mike Brunt
Webapper Services LLC
Web Site http://www.webapper.com
Blog http://www.webapper.net
Webapper
-Original Message-
From: John Quarto-vonTivadar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 7:28 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: FBX3 AND CFMX
> CFCs work just fine and can be used to build high-performance,
> scalable systems. I think it's very unfair of Hal to claim there are
> "just too many problems with CFCs" without providing more specific
> details.
Sean,
We'll be releasing FB4 pretty soon now. We chose not to base it on CFCs
{although one can easily use CFCs with it as well as CF5, ASP, PHP and JSP).
To answer your question, our thinking is as follows: CFCs are not ready for
the big time.
The reasons why have been discussed and debated for literally months by tons
of people on the various lists. We've also spent months tinkering with FBMX
based on CFCs and realized that everytime we plugged one Macromedia hole,
another one appeared. We're glad that some people are out having some
whatever type of success they've enjoyed with them, but we don't feel we
can release a new FB standard based on them unless and until Macromedia
makes CFCs work to such a point that they are more than just effectively
structures with UDF's attached to them. Nor are we prepared to recommend to
the Fusebox community that they are the way to go. Otherwise we will only
turn CFCs' problems into Fusebox's problems. With CFCs one effectively gets
most of the headaches of objects with almost none of the benefits -- and
that's the heart of the issue, isn't it: if Macromedia really believes its
own hype about OO then one might as well just switch to Java or C# and get a
real OO language.
Maybe we'll get to that point in some future release by Macromedia. Maybe
we'll get to that point once New Atlanta releases their BD version that
implements CFCs correctly. Either or both will be welcome. God knows I'd
love to be able to tell people to use CFMX in a production enviroment but I
have no such confidence in it ... yet.
Respectfully, it's not for us to prove that CFCs can be used to build
high-performance scalable systems (would still love to see one). Rather it's
for Macromedia (or CFC supporters?) to convince us, the community of
developers. It's an issue of risk: if we're wrong and you're right, then
all we lose is some time. But if you're wrong and we side with CFCs then we
do considerable damage to Fusebox, which is much more than just ColdFusion.
This is not a bet worth taking.
~|
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: FBX3 AND CFMX
I have a question for Sean, how much of MM's web site is running on CFMX
using CFCs? I imagine that is a reasonable yardstick, as MM's site must be
fairly busy.
Kind Regards - Mike Brunt
Webapper Services LLC
Web Site http://www.webapper.com
Blog http://www.webapper.net
Webapper
-Original Message-
From: John Quarto-vonTivadar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 7:28 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: FBX3 AND CFMX
> CFCs work just fine and can be used to build high-performance,
> scalable systems. I think it's very unfair of Hal to claim there are
> "just too many problems with CFCs" without providing more specific
> details.
Sean,
We'll be releasing FB4 pretty soon now. We chose not to base it on CFCs
{although one can easily use CFCs with it as well as CF5, ASP, PHP and JSP).
To answer your question, our thinking is as follows: CFCs are not ready for
the big time.
The reasons why have been discussed and debated for literally months by tons
of people on the various lists. We've also spent months tinkering with FBMX
based on CFCs and realized that everytime we plugged one Macromedia hole,
another one appeared. We're glad that some people are out having some
whatever type of success they've enjoyed with them, but we don't feel we
can release a new FB standard based on them unless and until Macromedia
makes CFCs work to such a point that they are more than just effectively
structures with UDF's attached to them. Nor are we prepared to recommend to
the Fusebox community that they are the way to go. Otherwise we will only
turn CFCs' problems into Fusebox's problems. With CFCs one effectively gets
most of the headaches of objects with almost none of the benefits -- and
that's the heart of the issue, isn't it: if Macromedia really believes its
own hype about OO then one might as well just switch to Java or C# and get a
real OO language.
Maybe we'll get to that point in some future release by Macromedia. Maybe
we'll get to that point once New Atlanta releases their BD version that
implements CFCs correctly. Either or both will be welcome. God knows I'd
love to be able to tell people to use CFMX in a production enviroment but I
have no such confidence in it ... yet.
Respectfully, it's not for us to prove that CFCs can be used to build
high-performance scalable systems (would still love to see one). Rather it's
for Macromedia (or CFC supporters?) to convince us, the community of
developers. It's an issue of risk: if we're wrong and you're right, then
all we lose is some time. But if you're wrong and we side with CFCs then we
do considerable damage to Fusebox, which is much more than just ColdFusion.
This is not a bet worth taking.
~|
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: FBX3 AND CFMX
> CFCs work just fine and can be used to build high-performance,
> scalable systems. I think it's very unfair of Hal to claim there are
> "just too many problems with CFCs" without providing more specific
> details.
Sean,
We'll be releasing FB4 pretty soon now. We chose not to base it on CFCs
{although one can easily use CFCs with it as well as CF5, ASP, PHP and JSP).
To answer your question, our thinking is as follows: CFCs are not ready for
the big time.
The reasons why have been discussed and debated for literally months by tons
of people on the various lists. We've also spent months tinkering with FBMX
based on CFCs and realized that everytime we plugged one Macromedia hole,
another one appeared. We're glad that some people are out having some
whatever type of success they've enjoyed with them, but we don't feel we
can release a new FB standard based on them unless and until Macromedia
makes CFCs work to such a point that they are more than just effectively
structures with UDF's attached to them. Nor are we prepared to recommend to
the Fusebox community that they are the way to go. Otherwise we will only
turn CFCs' problems into Fusebox's problems. With CFCs one effectively gets
most of the headaches of objects with almost none of the benefits -- and
that's the heart of the issue, isn't it: if Macromedia really believes its
own hype about OO then one might as well just switch to Java or C# and get a
real OO language.
Maybe we'll get to that point in some future release by Macromedia. Maybe
we'll get to that point once New Atlanta releases their BD version that
implements CFCs correctly. Either or both will be welcome. God knows I'd
love to be able to tell people to use CFMX in a production enviroment but I
have no such confidence in it ... yet.
Respectfully, it's not for us to prove that CFCs can be used to build
high-performance scalable systems (would still love to see one). Rather it's
for Macromedia (or CFC supporters?) to convince us, the community of
developers. It's an issue of risk: if we're wrong and you're right, then
all we lose is some time. But if you're wrong and we side with CFCs then we
do considerable damage to Fusebox, which is much more than just ColdFusion.
This is not a bet worth taking.
~|
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
CFCs's aren't that bad, was RE: FBX3 AND CFMX
This in an interesting thread with three current correspondents for who I have great respect (in alphabetical order of appearance - no favoritism) Barney, Hal and Sean . We have used Fusebox since version 1.0 and have built apps in all versions. FB30 is in my opinion the best framework ever created with any sort of user base for ColdFusion and pretty much the best for professional web application development. We had to present on FB and MX at a recent CF User Group meeting in Long Beach CA. So we would have something to distribute we finished the re write of the sample FB30 app "Taskmanager" using CFC's, mainly as replacements for fuses (with the exception of display fuses). To me this is a logical progression for Fusebox albeit a small progression. I also feel that those of us who used Fusebox will find it easier to segue into CFC's and how to use them. So far I like CFC's no doubt they are not truly OO in the purest sense but they do bring some sort of order and possible sort-of methodology to CF. We will continue to work on Taskmanager and use some of Hal's theories as mentioned by Sean and I agree with Sean here I do not see CFC's as such a bad thing and I have no doubts they will mature with time. Kind Regards - Mike Brunt Webapper Services LLC Web Site http://www.webapper.com Blog http://www.webapper.net Webapper -Original Message- From: Sean A Corfield [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 6:00 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: FBX3 AND CFMX On Monday, Feb 24, 2003, at 17:51 US/Pacific, Barney Boisvert wrote: > "I think that a version of Fusebox that uses CFCs as the base > component is a > long ways off as in months. There are just too many problems with CFCs > for > me to suggest that people rely heavily on them, which we would be > doing with > Fusebox MX." > > I have to agree with Hal's position on the matter. As cool as CFCs > could > be, they are still too problematic to depend heavily on. Well, I'm going to disagree. I don't understand why Hal is having such problems - I've offered to help him but he hasn't taken me up on the offers. CFCs work just fine and can be used to build high-performance, scalable systems. I think it's very unfair of Hal to claim there are "just too many problems with CFCs" without providing more specific details. 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 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: FBX3 AND CFMX
Again, I don't want to put words in Hal's mouth, but here's a list of things that have come up in various discussions (the one containing the quote from earlier and others): - Lack of a runtime inheritence hierarchy - Lack of the ability have instance variables - Lack of the ability to have protected and private methods and fields - Scoping issues, which may have been resolved, at least partially I suspect that the first one is the big stickler, because in order to encapsulate functionality, but allow parts of it to be extended, it is imperitive that the superclass' constructor is called, and sometimes super.methodName() as well. FBMX is not an application where such limitations can be worked around. It is a generic API that developers extend; a very different beast. The other three can be worked around, but are still a pain in the arse. My supposition is that Hal doesn't want to release something and then have MM fix any of the problems, which makes FBMX suddenly clunky or perhaps even broken. If CFCs were a few versions old, I think that hesitation wouldn't be there, or at least not as much, as long as the issues didn't make the framework overly clunky. I know he also looked at writing the framework in Java, but that never took off, because that would mean all extensions to the framework would have to be written in Java, rather than CF, which might be nice for some people, but part of the goal of FB is a shallow learning curve, or at least as shallow as possible while maintaining the potential for large-scale use. barneyb > -Original Message- > From: Sean A Corfield [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 6:00 PM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: Re: FBX3 AND CFMX > > > On Monday, Feb 24, 2003, at 17:51 US/Pacific, Barney Boisvert wrote: > > "I think that a version of Fusebox that uses CFCs as the base > > component is a > > long ways off as in months. There are just too many problems with CFCs > > for > > me to suggest that people rely heavily on them, which we would be > > doing with > > Fusebox MX." > > > > I have to agree with Hal's position on the matter. As cool as CFCs > > could > > be, they are still too problematic to depend heavily on. > > Well, I'm going to disagree. I don't understand why Hal is having such > problems - I've offered to help him but he hasn't taken me up on the > offers. CFCs work just fine and can be used to build high-performance, > scalable systems. I think it's very unfair of Hal to claim there are > "just too many problems with CFCs" without providing more specific > details. > > 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 This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for dependable ColdFusion Hosting. Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
Re: FBX3 AND CFMX
On Monday, Feb 24, 2003, at 17:51 US/Pacific, Barney Boisvert wrote: > "I think that a version of Fusebox that uses CFCs as the base > component is a > long ways off as in months. There are just too many problems with CFCs > for > me to suggest that people rely heavily on them, which we would be > doing with > Fusebox MX." > > I have to agree with Hal's position on the matter. As cool as CFCs > could > be, they are still too problematic to depend heavily on. Well, I'm going to disagree. I don't understand why Hal is having such problems - I've offered to help him but he hasn't taken me up on the offers. CFCs work just fine and can be used to build high-performance, scalable systems. I think it's very unfair of Hal to claim there are "just too many problems with CFCs" without providing more specific details. 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 This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for dependable ColdFusion Hosting. Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
RE: FBX3 AND CFMX
Here is a direct quote of Hal's from the FuseBox forums: "I think that a version of Fusebox that uses CFCs as the base component is a long ways off as in months. There are just too many problems with CFCs for me to suggest that people rely heavily on them, which we would be doing with Fusebox MX." I have to agree with Hal's position on the matter. As cool as CFCs could be, they are still too problematic to depend heavily on. As long as CFCs impose more restrictions that the time savings over writing Java directly is worth, I think Hal's (and mine) opinion will be a fairly common one. It's been less frustrating (and faster) for me to use Java objects where CFCs should be used. Of course, this only relates to using CFCs to object orient (if I may verb a noun) CF logic. Using them for web services and flash remoting are a totally different arena. barneyb > -Original Message- > From: Sean A Corfield [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 4:42 PM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: Re: FBX3 AND CFMX > > > On Monday, Feb 24, 2003, at 08:20 US/Pacific, John Paul Ashenfelter > wrote: > > This is the actual issue I *was* talking about. All the really good FB > > developer I've worked with *have* modded the core file. And it's > > encouraged -- look at Hal's whitepaper on adding fbx_permissions for > > his > > CF_Secure tag. Or John and Hal building FuseQ. Or Nat and Erik adding > > error-trapping to FEX. Or the new work for "FBMX". > > One of the key differentiators with FBMX is that you should not need to > modify the core files to add extensions. FBMX has a Plug-In > architecture (last time I looked at it) that allows you to simply write > your own CFCs and extend the stub CFCs provided by FBMX. Then you > register your plug-ins in the XML configuration file for the > application. > > I'm just disappointed that so little public information has appeared > about FBMX and how slow development seems to be of this new version. > I've offered to help but so far it appears to be Hal's solo project... > > 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: FBX3 AND CFMX
On Monday, Feb 24, 2003, at 08:20 US/Pacific, John Paul Ashenfelter wrote: > This is the actual issue I *was* talking about. All the really good FB > developer I've worked with *have* modded the core file. And it's > encouraged -- look at Hal's whitepaper on adding fbx_permissions for > his > CF_Secure tag. Or John and Hal building FuseQ. Or Nat and Erik adding > error-trapping to FEX. Or the new work for "FBMX". One of the key differentiators with FBMX is that you should not need to modify the core files to add extensions. FBMX has a Plug-In architecture (last time I looked at it) that allows you to simply write your own CFCs and extend the stub CFCs provided by FBMX. Then you register your plug-ins in the XML configuration file for the application. I'm just disappointed that so little public information has appeared about FBMX and how slow development seems to be of this new version. I've offered to help but so far it appears to be Hal's solo project... 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: FBX3 AND CFMX
Keep in mind that frameworks in any platform/language often get customized by end developers. Gawd knows how many bastardized versions of Struts are out there... Expect a "shrink-wrapped" framework to be customized. - Original Message - From: John Paul Ashenfelter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Monday, February 24, 2003 9:20 am Subject: Re: FBX3 AND CFMX > Granted, if a developer were to > > totally rework the core files, some issues might arise; however, > just> deviating from the methodology in some ways doesn't make it more > > difficult to follow. Besides, most developers don't fiddle > around with > > the core files. > > This is the actual issue I *was* talking about. All the really > good FB > developer I've worked with *have* modded the core file. And it's > encouraged -- look at Hal's whitepaper on adding fbx_permissions > for his > CF_Secure tag. Or John and Hal building FuseQ. Or Nat and Erik adding > error-trapping to FEX. Or the new work for "FBMX". > > Core file mods often make sense. Some of the error trapping in the > core is > misleading. Some basic things are just left out (on purpose) like > security,error handling, organizing custom functions/objects by > directory, etc. And > some folks tweak it to squeeze out more performance. There are a > lot of > reasons to mod the core files -- but no good battery of tests to > ensurecompatibility. I moved several apps from Fusebox.org FB3 to > FuseQ and there > were surprises -- errors that weren't there before. Easy ones to > fix, but > errors none the less. And there were also cases were code errors > resulted in > completely different error messages on the two different versions. > > Bastardized fusebox is simply that -- bastardized fusebox. It's > sort of > saying the application is "sort of MVC" or that the database is > "sort of > backed up" -- it is or it isn't. But the bigger issue remains -- > there's not > an organized development effort of Fusebox like many other open source > projects and thus there's no way to maintain and extend a single core. > Instead, each developer does their own thing. > > That said, I'll reemphasize that it's easier to big a decent > methodology of > the shelf and get the project done instead of trying to build your > own. FB3 > is a great contribution to CF for that reason alone. > > John Paul Ashenfelter > > > ~| 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: FBX3 AND CFMX
Granted, if a developer were to > totally rework the core files, some issues might arise; however, just > deviating from the methodology in some ways doesn't make it more > difficult to follow. Besides, most developers don't fiddle around with > the core files. This is the actual issue I *was* talking about. All the really good FB developer I've worked with *have* modded the core file. And it's encouraged -- look at Hal's whitepaper on adding fbx_permissions for his CF_Secure tag. Or John and Hal building FuseQ. Or Nat and Erik adding error-trapping to FEX. Or the new work for "FBMX". Core file mods often make sense. Some of the error trapping in the core is misleading. Some basic things are just left out (on purpose) like security, error handling, organizing custom functions/objects by directory, etc. And some folks tweak it to squeeze out more performance. There are a lot of reasons to mod the core files -- but no good battery of tests to ensure compatibility. I moved several apps from Fusebox.org FB3 to FuseQ and there were surprises -- errors that weren't there before. Easy ones to fix, but errors none the less. And there were also cases were code errors resulted in completely different error messages on the two different versions. Bastardized fusebox is simply that -- bastardized fusebox. It's sort of saying the application is "sort of MVC" or that the database is "sort of backed up" -- it is or it isn't. But the bigger issue remains -- there's not an organized development effort of Fusebox like many other open source projects and thus there's no way to maintain and extend a single core. Instead, each developer does their own thing. That said, I'll reemphasize that it's easier to big a decent methodology of the shelf and get the project done instead of trying to build your own. FB3 is a great contribution to CF for that reason alone. John Paul Ashenfelter ~| 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. Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
RE: FBX3 AND CFMX
Hi, Well, obviously, the code is only as good as the developer--no matter what methodology is used. Fusebox can't really help with this issue. The question that really has to be answered is: Does Fusebox enhance a competent developer's effort to produce manageable, well documented code? If your answer (any developer, not you specifically Dave) is "no", you should find or develop a methodology and framework that does. Also, I agree that in some cases Fusebox is overkill in many ways. Best regards, MW -Original Message- From: Dave Watts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] If you think that you can't write CF code well without using Fusebox, I would suggest otherwise. It doesn't even require such a "tight-knitted" framework, in many cases. ~| 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. Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
RE: FBX3 AND CFMX
> I don't see how you could compare a well-written > fusebox3 with one that is non-fuseboxed, unless it > is written in some other tight knitted framework > /methodology. The code would speak for itself. In my opinion, well-written code is always self-documenting - it always speaks for itself. If you think that you can't write CF code well without using Fusebox, I would suggest otherwise. It doesn't even require such a "tight-knitted" framework, in many cases. 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 Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
RE: FBX3 AND CFMX
For whatever this is worth and this is for us non-genius's with a little ADD; I don't see how you could compare a well-written fusebox3 with one that is non-fuseboxed, unless it is written in some other tight knitted framework/methodology. The code would speak for itself. Doug Teel - Web Developer Fulbright & Jaworski L.L.P. Phone 713-651-5432 Fax 713-651-5246 -Original Message- From: Dave Watts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 2:18 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: FBX3 AND CFMX > I think you may need to provide a better example of > what your talking about in terms of a "bastardized > Fusebox app". > > ... > > I do not know how much experience you have had with > Fusebox, but it sounds to me--and I do not mean this > as an insult in any way--as if you aren't very familiar > with how it all comes together. Not to speak for Andy, but in my experience - and at this point, I have quite a bit of "second-hand" Fusebox experience, since I do a lot of work with other peoples' Fusebox applications - a poorly-written Fusebox application is not significantly easier to troubleshoot or maintain than a poorly-written non-Fusebox application. It's also been my experience that a well-written non-Fusebox application is not significantly harder to troubleshoot or maintain than a well-written Fusebox application, for what that's worth. 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: FBX3 AND CFMX
> I think you may need to provide a better example of > what your talking about in terms of a "bastardized > Fusebox app". > > ... > > I do not know how much experience you have had with > Fusebox, but it sounds to me--and I do not mean this > as an insult in any way--as if you aren't very familiar > with how it all comes together. Not to speak for Andy, but in my experience - and at this point, I have quite a bit of "second-hand" Fusebox experience, since I do a lot of work with other peoples' Fusebox applications - a poorly-written Fusebox application is not significantly easier to troubleshoot or maintain than a poorly-written non-Fusebox application. It's also been my experience that a well-written non-Fusebox application is not significantly harder to troubleshoot or maintain than a well-written Fusebox application, for what that's worth. 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: FBX3 AND CFMX
> -Original Message- > From: Michael Wilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 2:05 PM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: RE: FBX3 AND CFMX > > > Hi, > > I think you may need to provide a better example of what your talking > about in terms of a "bastardized Fusebox app". Although I have never > encountered anything similar to what you are describing, I am sure > someone else has. Even if the app is "Fusebox-ish", I would still be > able to quickly grasp what has been done--if I cant, the app is most > likely very dissimilar to Fusebox. Granted, if a developer were to > totally rework the core files, some issues might arise; however, just > deviating from the methodology in some ways doesn't make it more > difficult to follow. Besides, most developers don't fiddle around with > the core files. You will usually find differences in file naming or a > different approach to nested layouts or the fbx_Switch.cfm. Although > part of the overall methodology, none of those portions are set in > stone. For example; Some developers like to use frm_formName.cfm for all > forms, but it's not part of the "official" Fusebox spec. This is all fine. John Paul Ashenfelter's post was the one that I first responded to, and I was talking about troubleshooting applications. My only point was that (per his mention of people changing Fusebox to suit their needs and sometimes doing it badly) if an application is not written well, it doesn't matter what framework is used. Now while I might be able to troubleshoot Fusebox applications and happen to come across one where things are quite different, I might spend the same amount of time trying to figure out what has changed as I would on an application that has it's own framework. This is subjective, of course, and without two real-world examples, is only my opinion that badly written apps are hard to troubleshoot, period. > I do not know how much experience you have had with Fusebox, but it > sounds to me--and I do not mean this as an insult in any way--as if you > aren't very familiar with how it all comes together. No offense taken! Since I've been fine-tuning my own framework for quite some time, I am not too familiar with FB3. I looked at it a bit when it came out, but by that time I was very comfortable with what I had. I have more experience with prior versions, but only worked with them some years back when I was at another company. As you know, my original assertion was not that it was bad, but that it seemed like a lot of variations were out there because the community as a whole was not in on the development of each version, so they had to make their own changes to parts that didn't work for them. My only contention was that this might be something for the community to address with whatever "standards body" Fusebox may have. The one thing that I know for sure is, I won't be seeing the Fusebox light any time soon, but like people that use Fusebox and are quite comfortable with it, so am I with what I've built for myself. I'll still take a look at FBMX when it comes out; I like to be somewhat familiar with the current version. --Andy ~| 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: FBX3 AND CFMX
Hi, I think you may need to provide a better example of what your talking about in terms of a "bastardized Fusebox app". Although I have never encountered anything similar to what you are describing, I am sure someone else has. Even if the app is "Fusebox-ish", I would still be able to quickly grasp what has been done--if I cant, the app is most likely very dissimilar to Fusebox. Granted, if a developer were to totally rework the core files, some issues might arise; however, just deviating from the methodology in some ways doesn't make it more difficult to follow. Besides, most developers don't fiddle around with the core files. You will usually find differences in file naming or a different approach to nested layouts or the fbx_Switch.cfm. Although part of the overall methodology, none of those portions are set in stone. For example; Some developers like to use frm_formName.cfm for all forms, but it's not part of the "official" Fusebox spec. I do not know how much experience you have had with Fusebox, but it sounds to me--and I do not mean this as an insult in any way--as if you aren't very familiar with how it all comes together. Best regards, MW -Original Message- From: Andrew Tyrone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] I was speaking of the ability to troubleshoot an app that is part Fusebox, part Bob's Great Idea To Modify This Section Over Here, for whatever reason. My point was that a mode of thinking is in place for people who use Fusebox when they encounter a bastardized Fusebox app, and I think that mode is just as hard to overcome as it is to look at an app that is written without Fusebox and troubleshoot it. ~| 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 Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
RE: FBX3 AND CFMX
> -Original Message- > From: Michael Wilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 1:49 PM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: RE: FBX3 AND CFMX > > > Hi Hi! > > I think the reason that people make so many variations > > of Fusebox is because they are constantly finding limitations. > > You could also say people are finding ways to improve the methodology > (framework), which, is a good thing in some cases. That is a great thing; everything has room for improvement! Maybe the Fusebox community should take a look at why there are so many hybrids out there, and if there is a legitimate reason for them, take into account the plethora of developers who might want to be in on the development of future versions. That is, of course, up to them. > > As you stated, there could be so many variations of it, and > > when troubleshooting one of those variations, it still takes > > the same amount of time to figure out the modified "framework" > > as it would any other "framework". > > FuseQ, one of the more popular Fusebox hybrids, just adds functionality > to Fusebox. You can use the FuseQ core files with any Fusebox 3 > application without fear of something breaking and without getting lost > in the code--you simply use as much or as little of the added > functionality as you would like. That sounds like the right way to add something; people troubleshooting the app would only have to familiarize themselves with FuseQ if they already knew Fusebox. --Andy ~| 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: FBX3 AND CFMX
Hi > I think the reason that people make so many variations > of Fusebox is because they are constantly finding limitations. You could also say people are finding ways to improve the methodology (framework), which, is a good thing in some cases. > As you stated, there could be so many variations of it, and > when troubleshooting one of those variations, it still takes > the same amount of time to figure out the modified "framework" > as it would any other "framework". FuseQ, one of the more popular Fusebox hybrids, just adds functionality to Fusebox. You can use the FuseQ core files with any Fusebox 3 application without fear of something breaking and without getting lost in the code--you simply use as much or as little of the added functionality as you would like. Best regards, MW ~| 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: FBX3 AND CFMX
> -Original Message- > From: Ken Wilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 12:35 PM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: RE: FBX3 AND CFMX > > > >I think the reason that people make so many variations of Fusebox > >is because they are constantly finding limitations. > > > > Or you could rephrase that in a somewhat more positive light rather than > a negative one: One of the reasons you find so many variations of > Fusebox is because creative developers are constantly extending it to > perform functions beyond what the core framework was designed to > include. I didn't intend it to be negative, but if you read John Paul Ashenfelter's post, which is the one I responded to, I think the reason all of the modifications take place is because it is not as open as people would like. As far as I'm concerned, I don't use it so that doesn't really matter to me. The reason I don't use it is because over the years I've come up with my own framework, which is still evolving. If I find a limitation, I figure out how to build the necessary functionality in without re-writing mass amounts of code. I like my framework, which is why I use it. It allows me to code apps very efficiently. Like I said, it's evolved over time because nothing is ever perfect, which ties in with my original point that if there are so many tweaks and variations to FB, then there's a good bet that people aren't getting everything they need from it as it's written. Making it more open is up to the creators, or you can create your own variation (the ones that were mentioned by John), but this just fragments the code-base even more and leads back to my original conclusion about troubleshooting apps in general. --Andy ~| 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: FBX3 AND CFMX
> -Original Message- > From: Barney Boisvert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 12:30 PM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: RE: FBX3 AND CFMX > > > I have to disagree with this opinion. As I see it, there are two major > 'types' of fusebox: normal and fuseQ. And the rest of the sliced and diced versions that deviate from the norm that is Fusebox "methodology". I was speaking of the ability to troubleshoot an app that is part Fusebox, part Bob's Great Idea To Modify This Section Over Here, for whatever reason. My point was that a mode of thinking is in place for people who use Fusebox when they encounter a bastardized Fusebox app, and I think that mode is just as hard to overcome as it is to look at an app that is written without Fusebox and troubleshoot it. --Andy ~| 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: FBX3 AND CFMX
>I think the reason that people make so many variations of Fusebox >is because they are constantly finding limitations. Or you could rephrase that in a somewhat more positive light rather than a negative one: One of the reasons you find so many variations of Fusebox is because creative developers are constantly extending it to perform functions beyond what the core framework was designed to include. That's a lot of what I've seen over the years. I'm not sure I'd consider adding additional features to be a reflection of an existing limitation unless you take the position that a core framework should include the weight of every conceivable desire including 3 styles of kitchen sinks. That doesn't necessarily make it easier to follow the modified framework when you first run into it. If the developer made serious changes to the core framework code rather than adding those functions as an optional add-on and/or failed to properly document the mods, then it can definitely be a pain. But I'd submit that's more a reflection on that developer rather than the core framework itself. Ken ~| 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: FBX3 AND CFMX
I have to disagree with this opinion. As I see it, there are two major 'types' of fusebox: normal and fuseQ. However, FB includes much outside the core file's functionality, such as filename prefixes, the breakdown in to circuits, fuseactions and fuses, and the use of fusedocs, all of which aren't tied to the core file at all. I'm probably being something of a heretic by saying that the core file's specific functionality is one of the least important pieces of FB, but it's not that far from the truth. FB isn't a technology, it's a methodology with some associated technology. You can thrash the tech as much as you want, but if you still follow the methodology, then another FB developer will be able to slide in and get to work very quickly. A qry_ file is still a qry_ file, and if you want to screw with the user admin code, you still look for the 'useradmin' circuit in fbx_Circuits.cfm, and go to the appropriate directory, where everything is located. Sure, fbx_Circuits might be XML based, and you're using symlinks for your general-purpose circuits, but if you tell the new guy that once, he'll never need to ask again, because that kind of stuff is such a small piece of the puzzle. barneyb > -Original Message- > From: Andrew Tyrone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 9:11 AM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: RE: FBX3 AND CFMX > > I think the reason that people make so many variations of Fusebox > is because > they are constantly finding limitations. As you stated, there could be so > many variations of it, and when troubleshooting one of those > variations, it > still takes the same amount of time to figure out the modified "framework" > as it would any other "framework". You either get lucky and have to > troubleshoot someone's well put-together application, no matter what the > methodology, or you get to slog through some Heinous Wonderland > of Spagehtti > Code. If an application is 50% Fusebox because it needed to be "tweaked", > then I say you'll have just as hard a time following it as you would a > home-grown mess. This is because you have a preconceived notion > of what the > app should be if it's Fusebox, and cetain things won't be in the right > places, which is just as frustrating and hard as troubleshooting code put > together in some other framework you've never seen before. > > --Andy > > > ~| 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: FBX3 AND CFMX
> ... or you get to slog through some Heinous Wonderland > of Spaghetti Code. Wasn't this one of the new rides at Disney World this year? 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 Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
RE: FBX3 AND CFMX
> -Original Message- > From: John Paul Ashenfelter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 11:07 AM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: Re: FBX3 AND CFMX > My biggest criticism of FB is, while the community is great, it's > not become > a project that's truly developed collaboratively like Struts or > many of the > other "standard" Apache/Jakarta projects. I know and like Hal and > Steve and > many of the others in the FB world, but no one really knows what > Hal or Jeff > or anyone is doing with FBMX -- there's not a public CVS to hook into, > there's no straightforward process for committing modifications > and changes > to the standard code base. So every time I start with a Fusebox app > developed by someone else, even someone really, really good, the > core files > are different. And there are these mods they made (e.g. FuseQ, FEX, 10,000 > personal variations) that may or may not be 100% compatible. So > there's a FB > "core", but it's modified for individual projects and never quite makes it > back to the main source code tree -- you have to find the mods, make them > yourself, add the custom tag someone wrote, etc. This is still FAR better > than getting someone's random methodology that you have to figure out -- > some of them are simply awful. Some are great. But each requires > a learning > curve -- I'd rather focus on coding the application than understanding the > framework. But that's me :) I think the reason that people make so many variations of Fusebox is because they are constantly finding limitations. As you stated, there could be so many variations of it, and when troubleshooting one of those variations, it still takes the same amount of time to figure out the modified "framework" as it would any other "framework". You either get lucky and have to troubleshoot someone's well put-together application, no matter what the methodology, or you get to slog through some Heinous Wonderland of Spagehtti Code. If an application is 50% Fusebox because it needed to be "tweaked", then I say you'll have just as hard a time following it as you would a home-grown mess. This is because you have a preconceived notion of what the app should be if it's Fusebox, and cetain things won't be in the right places, which is just as frustrating and hard as troubleshooting code put together in some other framework you've never seen before. --Andy ~| 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: FBX3 AND CFMX
I would suggest that FB is more a set of rules than an API. --- John McCosker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > //My opinion is that fusebox makes 90% of > application development in > //coldfusion easier and more standardized. The > other 10% you have to either > //violate the "rules" or make a work around. > > FUSEBOX is not a set of rules, this is what is so > irritating about peoples > ignorance to the > methodology, its a free Open Source standard API to > work from. You take it > from there. > FUSEBOX community nor their creators claim its the > Holy Grail, how can it be > for gods sake. > As a developer and an individual, you are creative, > intelligent, analytical, > you need to make > alterations, fixes, workarounds, is this not called > initiative, " breaking > rules " is so negative. > > and my 2 cents, or 2p in N.Ireland J. > __ Do You Yahoo!? Everything you'll ever need on one web page from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts http://uk.my.yahoo.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 Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
Re: FBX3 AND CFMX
I started with CF. Took me a couple of years to find fusebox -- even though Steve Nelson lived in the same town :) I though FB2.0 was lame. FB3.0 was great though and have happily used ever since. Biggest advantage of FB in my opinion is that it's a shrinkwrapped development toolset -- . I've gone through the explicit process of developing a software methodology and development framework with a small team and it's very time intensive. FB3 and/or FLiP give you a prepackaged set to start from and either use as-is, modify, or rule out -- which is in keeping with the Agile (capital A ala Alistair Cockburn) methodologies. I use the fusebox framework for all my CF5 development. I've used Struts on Java projects and find it to be a lot of additional overhead for small projects (but then again, maybe CF is better for those smaller projects than Java in the first place!). For CFMX, the jury is still out -- most of my clients remain on CF5 and their apps are all functional in CFMX as-is. But I'm lazy and it's easier to use FB3 for development now that to come up with my own CFMX CFC-based development toolset. Same thing in the Java world -- easier to use Struts than to build your own framework. My biggest criticism of FB is, while the community is great, it's not become a project that's truly developed collaboratively like Struts or many of the other "standard" Apache/Jakarta projects. I know and like Hal and Steve and many of the others in the FB world, but no one really knows what Hal or Jeff or anyone is doing with FBMX -- there's not a public CVS to hook into, there's no straightforward process for committing modifications and changes to the standard code base. So every time I start with a Fusebox app developed by someone else, even someone really, really good, the core files are different. And there are these mods they made (e.g. FuseQ, FEX, 10,000 personal variations) that may or may not be 100% compatible. So there's a FB "core", but it's modified for individual projects and never quite makes it back to the main source code tree -- you have to find the mods, make them yourself, add the custom tag someone wrote, etc. This is still FAR better than getting someone's random methodology that you have to figure out -- some of them are simply awful. Some are great. But each requires a learning curve -- I'd rather focus on coding the application than understanding the framework. But that's me :) Most frameworks, IMHO, are simply distillations of best practices -- that's why they are useful. FB2 certainly was that. FB3 is as well -- it's good to break software into smaller functional components that can be reused. It's good to have nested layouts. It's good to have integrated error-checking, form validation and management (ie Struts), central files to configure the app (fbx_settings.cfm or config.xml), etc. And none of these frameworks are the golden fleece -- Struts is really good for form-based applications. Velocity/Turbine/Torque is good for heavy-database oriented apps that can benefit from data object autogeneration. FB is really good for scripted web apps. etc. None are perfect (it's like ERP systems -- none are good, and whatever you chose for yourself is the worst one) but all distill good ideas into a coherent package to grab and use. Regards, John Paul Ashenfelter CTO/Transitionpoint [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: "Bryan Stevenson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 4:39 PM Subject: Re: FBX3 AND CFMX > Couldn't have said it better myself Michael > > Do what works for you and your projects ;-) > > I still wouldn't mind hearing from the FBers out there > > Did you start CF with FB or pickup FB along the way? > > 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 Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 12:40 PM > Subject: RE: FBX3 AND CFMX > > > > Hi, > > > > Actually, I totally understand where you're coming from. I wasn't trying > > to imply that Fusebox is better, because for some people it certainly is > > not. And, you are right--A methodology is supposed to make development > > smoother; or at least more standardized. If it doesn&
RE: FBX3 AND CFMX
> FUSEBOX is not a set of rules, this is what is so irritating > about peoples ignorance to the methodology, its a free Open > Source standard API to work from. I would have to disagree. If it's nothing else, it is a set of rules. It's not a methodology, either; maybe it's a framework. It's certainly not an API in any meaningful way. Like most sets of rules created by people, you may choose to disregard some or all of them. 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. Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
RE: FBX3 AND CFMX
//My opinion is that fusebox makes 90% of application development in //coldfusion easier and more standardized. The other 10% you have to either //violate the "rules" or make a work around. FUSEBOX is not a set of rules, this is what is so irritating about peoples ignorance to the methodology, its a free Open Source standard API to work from. You take it from there. FUSEBOX community nor their creators claim its the Holy Grail, how can it be for gods sake. As a developer and an individual, you are creative, intelligent, analytical, you need to make alterations, fixes, workarounds, is this not called initiative, " breaking rules " is so negative. and my 2 cents, or 2p in N.Ireland J. -Original Message- From: Fregas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 20 February 2003 20:38 To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: FBX3 AND CFMX Bryan, I think the issues here is trade-offs. To use fusebox, you must give up certain ways of coding and adopt others. This might make certain tasks "more difficult". The question is: are the sacrifices made to conform to fusebox worth accepting in order to avoid some problems and take advantage of the framework? This is where you'll get arguments. Also, fusebox isn't meant to be a straight jacket. There are times where you must simply violate the methodology to do what needs to be done. This isn't necessarily bad any more than violating OOP principals to make a database layer in an application is bad (because databases aren't OOP.) An example of this is when I was using Fusebox 2. Fusebox 2 had the rule: "THOU SHALT PUT ALL CFINCLUDES AND CFMODULES IN THE INDEX.CFM. THOU SHALT NOT PUT THEM IN ANY OTHER FILE." This was a rule that helped me enormously in the majority of applications and kept from having includes that included other includes and so on. Well, I needed to use recursion in one particular project. Since there were no UDFs or CFCs back than I had to have a fuseaction that CFINCLUDED a file that CFMODULED itself. This violated fusebox principals but under that circumstance I thought it was very appropriate to do so. My opinion is that fusebox makes 90% of application development in coldfusion easier and more standardized. The other 10% you have to either violate the "rules" or make a work around. You'll probably more often hear about people needing workarounds and needing help because the other 90% of their development went well and they don't need to talk about that. Just my 0.02. Fregas - Original Message - From: "Bryan Stevenson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 2:21 PM Subject: Re: FBX3 AND CFMX > Nope..ya missed my pointCFMX migration was just an example. I've seen > lost of issues that FBers have had to workaround just to work within the > methodology. To me personally (and ain't nobody gonna change my mind) that > is counter productive. > > I've always built custom apps (tailored to meet the clients needs/standards > etc.) and I've never had any problem with other coders taking over and > understanding the whole app or the portion they need to build and slot in. > > but now we're heading towards what's better ;-) > > I got a great unbiased response from Barney and I'm happy with that. > > Cheers > > 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 Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 12:00 PM > Subject: RE: FBX3 AND CFMX > > > > Hi, > > > > If I understand your point correctly, I would argue that migrating any > > existing application, Fusebox or other, to CFMX could potentially > > require some code adjustments. For me, Fusebox has worked fine on CFMX > > with only a single modification--telling Fusebox which version of CF I'm > > using. Also, I think the benefit of standardized development practices > > is one of the features that attract developers to Fusebox. I like the > > fact that all of the developers in my department are coding in the same > > manner and that there is a large community that supports the > > methodology. If you haven't looked at it for a while, you might want to > > check out FuseQ, a Fusebox-hybrid (I think Techspedition ca
Re: FBX3 AND CFMX
Try fertilizing with Netscape... I've heard it works wonders :) - Original Message - From: Bryan Stevenson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Thursday, February 20, 2003 3:41 pm Subject: Re: FBX3 AND CFMX > Hey...I love to garden...how dare you compare my trusty spade to > Netscape!!;-) > > 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: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 2:32 PM > Subject: Re: FBX3 AND CFMX > > > > Hey, there's nothing wrong with calling a spade a spade :) > > > > ----- Original Message - > > From: Fregas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Date: Thursday, February 20, 2003 3:24 pm > > Subject: Re: FBX3 AND CFMX > > > > > Yeah, I agree. I'm so sick of the divisions. Mac vs PC, Microsoft > > > vs The > > > Word, Java vs .NET, my programming language can beat up your > > > programminglanguage. > > > > > > I say: The right tool for the right job. > > > > > > I don't consider myself a Cfer, .NETer, ASPer, Microsft or Java > > > bigot. I'm > > > just a programmer and I'll use what I'm able to. > > > > > > Except for netscape browsers--those suck ass. > > > > > > :) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Original Message - > > > From: "Bryan Stevenson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 4:03 PM > > > Subject: Re: FBX3 AND CFMX > > > > > > > > > > Fregas said: > > > > "One thing that fusebox did that has nothing to do with any > > > particular> methodology is it taught me how to best structure a > > > web application. It > > > > taught me more about custom tags, application & session > variables,> > cfmodule, > > > > naming conventions, logical organization of modules, etc. I > > > think that's > > > > one benefit with fusebox for new CFers is it forces them to > use some > > > > features in CF and architecture that they might have avoided but > > > aren't> exclusive to fusebox by any means. > > > > > > > > I think that as long as you're using some kind of methodology > > > and that you > > > > write clean modularized code, you are in good shape. You > don't need > > > fusebox > > > > to do this, but it helps if you haven't done this before." > > > > > > > > Ya I think that nails itgreat for green CFers that don't get > > > exposureto > > > > the (and don't flame me for saying this) "real" side of web > > > application> development as opposed to just something written in > > > CF. Of course > > > > ultimately if you write your code properly then anyone > should be > > > able to > > > > understand it and it should be constructed so that updates and > > > additions> work with minimal hassle etc. etc. blah blah blah > > > > > > > > Wow...could we be heading towards the bright shiny light of > > > FBers and > > > > regular CFers coming together in peace and understanding ;-) > > > > > > > > Great points today folks...much more productive than the usual > > > FB vs.no FB > > > > mud slingin! > > > > > > > > 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
Re: FBX3 AND CFMX
Hey...I love to garden...how dare you compare my trusty spade to Netscape!! ;-) 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: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 2:32 PM Subject: Re: FBX3 AND CFMX > Hey, there's nothing wrong with calling a spade a spade :) > > - Original Message - > From: Fregas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Thursday, February 20, 2003 3:24 pm > Subject: Re: FBX3 AND CFMX > > > Yeah, I agree. I'm so sick of the divisions. Mac vs PC, Microsoft > > vs The > > Word, Java vs .NET, my programming language can beat up your > > programminglanguage. > > > > I say: The right tool for the right job. > > > > I don't consider myself a Cfer, .NETer, ASPer, Microsft or Java > > bigot. I'm > > just a programmer and I'll use what I'm able to. > > > > Except for netscape browsers--those suck ass. > > > > :) > > > > > > > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "Bryan Stevenson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 4:03 PM > > Subject: Re: FBX3 AND CFMX > > > > > > > Fregas said: > > > "One thing that fusebox did that has nothing to do with any > > particular> methodology is it taught me how to best structure a > > web application. It > > > taught me more about custom tags, application & session variables, > > cfmodule, > > > naming conventions, logical organization of modules, etc. I > > think that's > > > one benefit with fusebox for new CFers is it forces them to use some > > > features in CF and architecture that they might have avoided but > > aren't> exclusive to fusebox by any means. > > > > > > I think that as long as you're using some kind of methodology > > and that you > > > write clean modularized code, you are in good shape. You don't need > > fusebox > > > to do this, but it helps if you haven't done this before." > > > > > > Ya I think that nails itgreat for green CFers that don't get > > exposureto > > > the (and don't flame me for saying this) "real" side of web > > application> development as opposed to just something written in > > CF. Of course > > > ultimately if you write your code properly then anyone should be > > able to > > > understand it and it should be constructed so that updates and > > additions> work with minimal hassle etc. etc. blah blah blah > > > > > > Wow...could we be heading towards the bright shiny light of > > FBers and > > > regular CFers coming together in peace and understanding ;-) > > > > > > Great points today folks...much more productive than the usual > > FB vs.no FB > > > mud slingin! > > > > > > 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: "Fregas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 1:47 PM > > > Subject: Re: FBX3 AND CFMX > > > > > > > > > > Bryan, > > > > > > > > I started with just plain old vanilla cf. I hadn't done any web > > > > programming, only a little VB5-6 and some basic and pascal years > > earlier, > > > so > > > > I was a pretty green programmer. > > > > > > > > Well, as I mentioned we had done some terrible things to our > > CFML code: > > > many > > > > levels o
Re: FBX3 AND CFMX
Hey, there's nothing wrong with calling a spade a spade :) - Original Message - From: Fregas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Thursday, February 20, 2003 3:24 pm Subject: Re: FBX3 AND CFMX > Yeah, I agree. I'm so sick of the divisions. Mac vs PC, Microsoft > vs The > Word, Java vs .NET, my programming language can beat up your > programminglanguage. > > I say: The right tool for the right job. > > I don't consider myself a Cfer, .NETer, ASPer, Microsft or Java > bigot. I'm > just a programmer and I'll use what I'm able to. > > Except for netscape browsers--those suck ass. > > :) > > > > > - Original Message - > From: "Bryan Stevenson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 4:03 PM > Subject: Re: FBX3 AND CFMX > > > > Fregas said: > > "One thing that fusebox did that has nothing to do with any > particular> methodology is it taught me how to best structure a > web application. It > > taught me more about custom tags, application & session variables, > cfmodule, > > naming conventions, logical organization of modules, etc. I > think that's > > one benefit with fusebox for new CFers is it forces them to use some > > features in CF and architecture that they might have avoided but > aren't> exclusive to fusebox by any means. > > > > I think that as long as you're using some kind of methodology > and that you > > write clean modularized code, you are in good shape. You don't need > fusebox > > to do this, but it helps if you haven't done this before." > > > > Ya I think that nails itgreat for green CFers that don't get > exposureto > > the (and don't flame me for saying this) "real" side of web > application> development as opposed to just something written in > CF. Of course > > ultimately if you write your code properly then anyone should be > able to > > understand it and it should be constructed so that updates and > additions> work with minimal hassle etc. etc. blah blah blah > > > > Wow...could we be heading towards the bright shiny light of > FBers and > > regular CFers coming together in peace and understanding ;-) > > > > Great points today folks...much more productive than the usual > FB vs.no FB > > mud slingin! > > > > 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: "Fregas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 1:47 PM > > Subject: Re: FBX3 AND CFMX > > > > > > > Bryan, > > > > > > I started with just plain old vanilla cf. I hadn't done any web > > > programming, only a little VB5-6 and some basic and pascal years > earlier, > > so > > > I was a pretty green programmer. > > > > > > Well, as I mentioned we had done some terrible things to our > CFML code: > > many > > > levels of nested includes, copying and pasting of code such as > queriesand > > > display logic, etc. Once I heard about fusebox it took me a > while to > get > > a > > > feel for it, but when I understood it, it helped tremendously. > > > > > > One thing that fusebox did that has nothing to do with any > particular> > methodology is it taught me how to best structure a > web application. It > > > taught me more about custom tags, application & session variables, > > cfmodule, > > > naming conventions, logical organization of modules, etc. I think > that's > > > one benefit with fusebox for new CFers is it forces them to > use some > > > features in CF and architecture that they might have avoided > but aren't > > > exclusive to fusebox by any means. > > > > > > I think that as long as you're using some kind of methodology > and that > you > > > write cl
Re: FBX3 AND CFMX
Oooo but Netscape is standard compliant ;-) You nailed it again...and yes Netscape does suck ass!! 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: "Fregas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 2:24 PM Subject: Re: FBX3 AND CFMX > Yeah, I agree. I'm so sick of the divisions. Mac vs PC, Microsoft vs The > Word, Java vs .NET, my programming language can beat up your programming > language. > > I say: The right tool for the right job. > > I don't consider myself a Cfer, .NETer, ASPer, Microsft or Java bigot. I'm > just a programmer and I'll use what I'm able to. > > Except for netscape browsers--those suck ass. > > :) > > > > > - Original Message - > From: "Bryan Stevenson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 4:03 PM > Subject: Re: FBX3 AND CFMX > > > > Fregas said: > > "One thing that fusebox did that has nothing to do with any particular > > methodology is it taught me how to best structure a web application. It > > taught me more about custom tags, application & session variables, > cfmodule, > > naming conventions, logical organization of modules, etc. I think that's > > one benefit with fusebox for new CFers is it forces them to use some > > features in CF and architecture that they might have avoided but aren't > > exclusive to fusebox by any means. > > > > I think that as long as you're using some kind of methodology and that you > > write clean modularized code, you are in good shape. You don't need > fusebox > > to do this, but it helps if you haven't done this before." > > > > Ya I think that nails itgreat for green CFers that don't get exposure > to > > the (and don't flame me for saying this) "real" side of web application > > development as opposed to just something written in CF. Of course > > ultimately if you write your code properly then anyone should be able to > > understand it and it should be constructed so that updates and additions > > work with minimal hassle etc. etc. blah blah blah > > > > Wow...could we be heading towards the bright shiny light of FBers and > > regular CFers coming together in peace and understanding ;-) > > > > Great points today folks...much more productive than the usual FB vs.no FB > > mud slingin! > > > > 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: "Fregas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 1:47 PM > > Subject: Re: FBX3 AND CFMX > > > > > > > Bryan, > > > > > > I started with just plain old vanilla cf. I hadn't done any web > > > programming, only a little VB5-6 and some basic and pascal years > earlier, > > so > > > I was a pretty green programmer. > > > > > > Well, as I mentioned we had done some terrible things to our CFML code: > > many > > > levels of nested includes, copying and pasting of code such as queries > and > > > display logic, etc. Once I heard about fusebox it took me a while to > get > > a > > > feel for it, but when I understood it, it helped tremendously. > > > > > > One thing that fusebox did that has nothing to do with any particular > > > methodology is it taught me how to best structure a web application. It > > > taught me more about custom tags, application & session variables, > > cfmodule, > > > naming conventions, logical organization of modules, etc. I think > that's > > > one benefit with fusebox for new
Re: FBX3 AND CFMX
Yeah, I agree. I'm so sick of the divisions. Mac vs PC, Microsoft vs The Word, Java vs .NET, my programming language can beat up your programming language. I say: The right tool for the right job. I don't consider myself a Cfer, .NETer, ASPer, Microsft or Java bigot. I'm just a programmer and I'll use what I'm able to. Except for netscape browsers--those suck ass. :) - Original Message - From: "Bryan Stevenson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 4:03 PM Subject: Re: FBX3 AND CFMX > Fregas said: > "One thing that fusebox did that has nothing to do with any particular > methodology is it taught me how to best structure a web application. It > taught me more about custom tags, application & session variables, cfmodule, > naming conventions, logical organization of modules, etc. I think that's > one benefit with fusebox for new CFers is it forces them to use some > features in CF and architecture that they might have avoided but aren't > exclusive to fusebox by any means. > > I think that as long as you're using some kind of methodology and that you > write clean modularized code, you are in good shape. You don't need fusebox > to do this, but it helps if you haven't done this before." > > Ya I think that nails itgreat for green CFers that don't get exposure to > the (and don't flame me for saying this) "real" side of web application > development as opposed to just something written in CF. Of course > ultimately if you write your code properly then anyone should be able to > understand it and it should be constructed so that updates and additions > work with minimal hassle etc. etc. blah blah blah > > Wow...could we be heading towards the bright shiny light of FBers and > regular CFers coming together in peace and understanding ;-) > > Great points today folks...much more productive than the usual FB vs.no FB > mud slingin! > > 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: "Fregas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 1:47 PM > Subject: Re: FBX3 AND CFMX > > > > Bryan, > > > > I started with just plain old vanilla cf. I hadn't done any web > > programming, only a little VB5-6 and some basic and pascal years earlier, > so > > I was a pretty green programmer. > > > > Well, as I mentioned we had done some terrible things to our CFML code: > many > > levels of nested includes, copying and pasting of code such as queries and > > display logic, etc. Once I heard about fusebox it took me a while to get > a > > feel for it, but when I understood it, it helped tremendously. > > > > One thing that fusebox did that has nothing to do with any particular > > methodology is it taught me how to best structure a web application. It > > taught me more about custom tags, application & session variables, > cfmodule, > > naming conventions, logical organization of modules, etc. I think that's > > one benefit with fusebox for new CFers is it forces them to use some > > features in CF and architecture that they might have avoided but aren't > > exclusive to fusebox by any means. > > > > I think that as long as you're using some kind of methodology and that you > > write clean modularized code, you are in good shape. You don't need > fusebox > > to do this, but it helps if you haven't done this before. > > > > Craig > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "Bryan Stevenson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 3:39 PM > > Subject: Re: FBX3 AND CFMX > > > > > > > Couldn't have said it better myself Michael > > > > > > Do what works for you and your projects ;-) > > > > > > I still wouldn't mind hearing from the FBers out there > > > > > > Did you start CF with FB or pickup FB along the way? > > > > > > Bryan Stevenson B.Comm. > > > VP & Director of E-Commerce Development
RE: FBX3 AND CFMX
>Did you start CF with FB or pickup FB along the way? Picked it up along the way several years ago before there was any such thing as version numbering with FB. I've not moved over to FB3 yet and personally never much bought into the notion of the "thou shalt" and "thou shalt not" aspect of the methodology. I use significant parts of it where appropriate, use my own in other places and have yet to encounter anything I would consider a limitation imposed by FB. Ken ~| 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: FBX3 AND CFMX
I have the same history as mentioned before - started with CF and wrote really bad code. Picked up FuseBox, got organized and now the code is actually understandable when I come back to it. My question however is, I use FuseBox, but what do other people use? Is there another 'methodology' out there that is used/recommended? I have gotten stuck in FuseBox such any time I do a new app, I am always thinking FuseBox. What else is there (always open to new and better things)? -- Jeff -Original Message- From: Bryan Stevenson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 4:04 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: FBX3 AND CFMX Fregas said: "One thing that fusebox did that has nothing to do with any particular methodology is it taught me how to best structure a web application. It taught me more about custom tags, application & session variables, cfmodule, naming conventions, logical organization of modules, etc. I think that's one benefit with fusebox for new CFers is it forces them to use some features in CF and architecture that they might have avoided but aren't exclusive to fusebox by any means. I think that as long as you're using some kind of methodology and that you write clean modularized code, you are in good shape. You don't need fusebox to do this, but it helps if you haven't done this before." Ya I think that nails itgreat for green CFers that don't get exposure to the (and don't flame me for saying this) "real" side of web application development as opposed to just something written in CF. Of course ultimately if you write your code properly then anyone should be able to understand it and it should be constructed so that updates and additions work with minimal hassle etc. etc. blah blah blah Wow...could we be heading towards the bright shiny light of FBers and regular CFers coming together in peace and understanding ;-) Great points today folks...much more productive than the usual FB vs.no FB mud slingin! 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: "Fregas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 1:47 PM Subject: Re: FBX3 AND CFMX > Bryan, > > I started with just plain old vanilla cf. I hadn't done any web > programming, only a little VB5-6 and some basic and pascal years > earlier, so > I was a pretty green programmer. > > Well, as I mentioned we had done some terrible things to our CFML > code: many > levels of nested includes, copying and pasting of code such as queries > and display logic, etc. Once I heard about fusebox it took me a while > to get a > feel for it, but when I understood it, it helped tremendously. > > One thing that fusebox did that has nothing to do with any particular > methodology is it taught me how to best structure a web application. > It taught me more about custom tags, application & session variables, cfmodule, > naming conventions, logical organization of modules, etc. I think > that's one benefit with fusebox for new CFers is it forces them to use > some features in CF and architecture that they might have avoided but > aren't exclusive to fusebox by any means. > > I think that as long as you're using some kind of methodology and that > you write clean modularized code, you are in good shape. You don't > need fusebox > to do this, but it helps if you haven't done this before. > > Craig > > - Original Message - > From: "Bryan Stevenson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 3:39 PM > Subject: Re: FBX3 AND CFMX > > > > Couldn't have said it better myself Michael > > > > Do what works for you and your projects ;-) > > > > I still wouldn't mind hearing from the FBers out there > > > > Did you start CF with FB or pickup FB along the way? > > > > 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 > >
Re: FBX3 AND CFMX
> I still wouldn't mind hearing from the FBers out there The one thing I like about fusebox is "no more CFLOCATION". This is great and eliminates tons of issues with mac browsers. Well, that and it was pretty close to what I was doing anyway. Don't we all hate change :-) ~| 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: FBX3 AND CFMX
Fregas said: "One thing that fusebox did that has nothing to do with any particular methodology is it taught me how to best structure a web application. It taught me more about custom tags, application & session variables, cfmodule, naming conventions, logical organization of modules, etc. I think that's one benefit with fusebox for new CFers is it forces them to use some features in CF and architecture that they might have avoided but aren't exclusive to fusebox by any means. I think that as long as you're using some kind of methodology and that you write clean modularized code, you are in good shape. You don't need fusebox to do this, but it helps if you haven't done this before." Ya I think that nails itgreat for green CFers that don't get exposure to the (and don't flame me for saying this) "real" side of web application development as opposed to just something written in CF. Of course ultimately if you write your code properly then anyone should be able to understand it and it should be constructed so that updates and additions work with minimal hassle etc. etc. blah blah blah Wow...could we be heading towards the bright shiny light of FBers and regular CFers coming together in peace and understanding ;-) Great points today folks...much more productive than the usual FB vs.no FB mud slingin! 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: "Fregas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 1:47 PM Subject: Re: FBX3 AND CFMX > Bryan, > > I started with just plain old vanilla cf. I hadn't done any web > programming, only a little VB5-6 and some basic and pascal years earlier, so > I was a pretty green programmer. > > Well, as I mentioned we had done some terrible things to our CFML code: many > levels of nested includes, copying and pasting of code such as queries and > display logic, etc. Once I heard about fusebox it took me a while to get a > feel for it, but when I understood it, it helped tremendously. > > One thing that fusebox did that has nothing to do with any particular > methodology is it taught me how to best structure a web application. It > taught me more about custom tags, application & session variables, cfmodule, > naming conventions, logical organization of modules, etc. I think that's > one benefit with fusebox for new CFers is it forces them to use some > features in CF and architecture that they might have avoided but aren't > exclusive to fusebox by any means. > > I think that as long as you're using some kind of methodology and that you > write clean modularized code, you are in good shape. You don't need fusebox > to do this, but it helps if you haven't done this before. > > Craig > > - Original Message - > From: "Bryan Stevenson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 3:39 PM > Subject: Re: FBX3 AND CFMX > > > > Couldn't have said it better myself Michael > > > > Do what works for you and your projects ;-) > > > > I still wouldn't mind hearing from the FBers out there > > > > Did you start CF with FB or pickup FB along the way? > > > > 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 Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 12:40 PM > > Subject: RE: FBX3 AND CFMX > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > Actually, I totally understand where you're coming from. I wasn't trying > > > to imply that Fusebox is better, because for some people it certainly is > > > not. And, you are right--A methodology is supposed to make development > > > smoother; or at least more stan
Re: FBX3 AND CFMX
Bryan, I started with just plain old vanilla cf. I hadn't done any web programming, only a little VB5-6 and some basic and pascal years earlier, so I was a pretty green programmer. Well, as I mentioned we had done some terrible things to our CFML code: many levels of nested includes, copying and pasting of code such as queries and display logic, etc. Once I heard about fusebox it took me a while to get a feel for it, but when I understood it, it helped tremendously. One thing that fusebox did that has nothing to do with any particular methodology is it taught me how to best structure a web application. It taught me more about custom tags, application & session variables, cfmodule, naming conventions, logical organization of modules, etc. I think that's one benefit with fusebox for new CFers is it forces them to use some features in CF and architecture that they might have avoided but aren't exclusive to fusebox by any means. I think that as long as you're using some kind of methodology and that you write clean modularized code, you are in good shape. You don't need fusebox to do this, but it helps if you haven't done this before. Craig - Original Message - From: "Bryan Stevenson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 3:39 PM Subject: Re: FBX3 AND CFMX > Couldn't have said it better myself Michael > > Do what works for you and your projects ;-) > > I still wouldn't mind hearing from the FBers out there > > Did you start CF with FB or pickup FB along the way? > > 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 Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 12:40 PM > Subject: RE: FBX3 AND CFMX > > > > Hi, > > > > Actually, I totally understand where you're coming from. I wasn't trying > > to imply that Fusebox is better, because for some people it certainly is > > not. And, you are right--A methodology is supposed to make development > > smoother; or at least more standardized. If it doesn't then you > > shouldn't use it. Given that Fusebox has been through so many changes > > and because there are now several hybrids available that address many of > > the issues developers have faced in the past, I was simply suggesting > > that you re-test the waters to determine if the workaround issues you > > are concerned with still exist. > > > > In any case, you seem to be very comfortable and productive within your > > own methodology; that is all that truly counts. :) > > > > Best regards > > MW > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Bryan Stevenson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 3:21 PM > > To: CF-Talk > > Subject: Re: FBX3 AND CFMX > > > > > > Nope..ya missed my pointCFMX migration was just an example. > > but now we're heading towards what's better ;-) > > > > > > > ~| 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 Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
Why FB3? (Was RE: FBX3 AND CFMX)
Per Bryan's post below: Pretty much everyone in my office started with CF and then picked up FB along the way -- precisely because we needed a consistent methodology. I spoke at the Fusebox conference last year regarding "Selling Fusebox to Managers: A Successful Case Study" -- it basically talks about our own FB experiences and why it works for us. You can access it at http://www.duodesign.com/presentations/. The main site for the case study, btw, has just been ported to cfmx: http://www.chicagoparkdistrict.com And just to be clear: I don't disagree with most of what's been said here, especially the reiteration of the "use what works for you" mantra. But for us, that's definitely FB3. Kelly Tetterton Technical Lead - duoDesign One Web Company. Twice the Results. 847.491.3000 | main 847.491.7125 | direct 847.491.3100 | fax [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.duodesign.com -Original Message- From: Bryan Stevenson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 3:39 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: FBX3 AND CFMX Couldn't have said it better myself Michael Do what works for you and your projects ;-) I still wouldn't mind hearing from the FBers out there Did you start CF with FB or pickup FB along the way? 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 Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 12:40 PM Subject: RE: FBX3 AND CFMX > Hi, > > Actually, I totally understand where you're coming from. I wasn't trying > to imply that Fusebox is better, because for some people it certainly is > not. And, you are right--A methodology is supposed to make development > smoother; or at least more standardized. If it doesn't then you > shouldn't use it. Given that Fusebox has been through so many changes > and because there are now several hybrids available that address many of > the issues developers have faced in the past, I was simply suggesting > that you re-test the waters to determine if the workaround issues you > are concerned with still exist. > > In any case, you seem to be very comfortable and productive within your > own methodology; that is all that truly counts. :) > > Best regards > MW > > -Original Message- > From: Bryan Stevenson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 3:21 PM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: Re: FBX3 AND CFMX > > > Nope..ya missed my pointCFMX migration was just an example. > but now we're heading towards what's better ;-) > > > ~| 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. Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
Re: RE: FBX3 AND CFMX
Note that Fusebox as a collection of files constitutes a framework. The flip thingy is the methodology that the creators of Fusebox offer. I don't use the flip methodology, but I do use the Fusebox framework. - Original Message - From: Michael Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Thursday, February 20, 2003 1:40 pm Subject: RE: FBX3 AND CFMX > Hi, > > Actually, I totally understand where you're coming from. I wasn't > tryingto imply that Fusebox is better, because for some people it > certainly is > not. And, you are right--A methodology is supposed to make development > smoother; or at least more standardized. If it doesn't then you > shouldn't use it. Given that Fusebox has been through so many changes > and because there are now several hybrids available that address > many of > the issues developers have faced in the past, I was simply suggesting > that you re-test the waters to determine if the workaround issues you > are concerned with still exist. > > In any case, you seem to be very comfortable and productive within > yourown methodology; that is all that truly counts. :) > > Best regards > MW > > -Original Message- > From: Bryan Stevenson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 3:21 PM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: Re: FBX3 AND CFMX > > > Nope..ya missed my pointCFMX migration was just an example. > but now we're heading towards what's better ;-) > > > ~| 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: FBX3 AND CFMX
Couldn't have said it better myself Michael Do what works for you and your projects ;-) I still wouldn't mind hearing from the FBers out there Did you start CF with FB or pickup FB along the way? 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 Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 12:40 PM Subject: RE: FBX3 AND CFMX > Hi, > > Actually, I totally understand where you're coming from. I wasn't trying > to imply that Fusebox is better, because for some people it certainly is > not. And, you are right--A methodology is supposed to make development > smoother; or at least more standardized. If it doesn't then you > shouldn't use it. Given that Fusebox has been through so many changes > and because there are now several hybrids available that address many of > the issues developers have faced in the past, I was simply suggesting > that you re-test the waters to determine if the workaround issues you > are concerned with still exist. > > In any case, you seem to be very comfortable and productive within your > own methodology; that is all that truly counts. :) > > Best regards > MW > > -Original Message----- > From: Bryan Stevenson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 3:21 PM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: Re: FBX3 AND CFMX > > > Nope..ya missed my pointCFMX migration was just an example. > but now we're heading towards what's better ;-) > > > ~| 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: FBX3 AND CFMX
As with any design pattern, it's a given that eventually, the pattern will have to be violated for some particular bit of functionality. - Original Message - From: Fregas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Thursday, February 20, 2003 1:38 pm Subject: Re: FBX3 AND CFMX > Bryan, > > I think the issues here is trade-offs. To use fusebox, you must > give up > certain ways of coding and adopt others. This might make certain > tasks"more difficult". The question is: are the sacrifices made > to conform to > fusebox worth accepting in order to avoid some problems and take > advantageof the framework? This is where you'll get arguments. > Also, fusebox isn't > meant to be a straight jacket. There are times where you must simply > violate the methodology to do what needs to be done. This isn't > necessarilybad any more than violating OOP principals to make a > database layer in an > application is bad (because databases aren't OOP.) > > An example of this is when I was using Fusebox 2. Fusebox 2 had > the rule: > "THOU SHALT PUT ALL CFINCLUDES AND CFMODULES IN THE INDEX.CFM. > THOU SHALT > NOT PUT THEM IN ANY OTHER FILE." This was a rule that helped me > enormouslyin the majority of applications and kept from having > includes that included > other includes and so on. Well, I needed to use recursion in one > particularproject. Since there were no UDFs or CFCs back than I > had to have a > fuseaction that CFINCLUDED a file that CFMODULED itself. This > violatedfusebox principals but under that circumstance I thought > it was very > appropriate to do so. > > My opinion is that fusebox makes 90% of application development in > coldfusion easier and more standardized. The other 10% you have > to either > violate the "rules" or make a work around. > > You'll probably more often hear about people needing workarounds > and needing > help because the other 90% of their development went well and they > don'tneed to talk about that. > > Just my 0.02. > > Fregas > > - Original Message - > From: "Bryan Stevenson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 2:21 PM > Subject: Re: FBX3 AND CFMX > > > > Nope..ya missed my pointCFMX migration was just an example. > I've seen > > lost of issues that FBers have had to workaround just to work > within the > > methodology. To me personally (and ain't nobody gonna change my > mind)that > > is counter productive. > > > > I've always built custom apps (tailored to meet the clients > needs/standards > > etc.) and I've never had any problem with other coders taking > over and > > understanding the whole app or the portion they need to build > and slot in. > > > > but now we're heading towards what's better ;-) > > > > I got a great unbiased response from Barney and I'm happy with that. > > > > Cheers > > > > 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 Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 12:00 PM > > Subject: RE: FBX3 AND CFMX > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > If I understand your point correctly, I would argue that > migrating any > > > existing application, Fusebox or other, to CFMX could potentially > > > require some code adjustments. For me, Fusebox has worked fine > on CFMX > > > with only a single modification--telling Fusebox which version > of CF I'm > > > using. Also, I think the benefit of standardized development > practices> > is one of the features that attract developers to > Fusebox. I like the > > > fact that all of the developers in my department are coding in > the same > > > manner and that there is a large community that supports the > > > methodology. If you haven't looked at it for a while, you > might want to > > > check out FuseQ, a Fusebox-hybrid (I thi
RE: FBX3 AND CFMX
Hi, Actually, I totally understand where you're coming from. I wasn't trying to imply that Fusebox is better, because for some people it certainly is not. And, you are right--A methodology is supposed to make development smoother; or at least more standardized. If it doesn't then you shouldn't use it. Given that Fusebox has been through so many changes and because there are now several hybrids available that address many of the issues developers have faced in the past, I was simply suggesting that you re-test the waters to determine if the workaround issues you are concerned with still exist. In any case, you seem to be very comfortable and productive within your own methodology; that is all that truly counts. :) Best regards MW -Original Message- From: Bryan Stevenson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 3:21 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: FBX3 AND CFMX Nope..ya missed my pointCFMX migration was just an example. but now we're heading towards what's better ;-) ~| 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 Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
Re: FBX3 AND CFMX
Bryan, I think the issues here is trade-offs. To use fusebox, you must give up certain ways of coding and adopt others. This might make certain tasks "more difficult". The question is: are the sacrifices made to conform to fusebox worth accepting in order to avoid some problems and take advantage of the framework? This is where you'll get arguments. Also, fusebox isn't meant to be a straight jacket. There are times where you must simply violate the methodology to do what needs to be done. This isn't necessarily bad any more than violating OOP principals to make a database layer in an application is bad (because databases aren't OOP.) An example of this is when I was using Fusebox 2. Fusebox 2 had the rule: "THOU SHALT PUT ALL CFINCLUDES AND CFMODULES IN THE INDEX.CFM. THOU SHALT NOT PUT THEM IN ANY OTHER FILE." This was a rule that helped me enormously in the majority of applications and kept from having includes that included other includes and so on. Well, I needed to use recursion in one particular project. Since there were no UDFs or CFCs back than I had to have a fuseaction that CFINCLUDED a file that CFMODULED itself. This violated fusebox principals but under that circumstance I thought it was very appropriate to do so. My opinion is that fusebox makes 90% of application development in coldfusion easier and more standardized. The other 10% you have to either violate the "rules" or make a work around. You'll probably more often hear about people needing workarounds and needing help because the other 90% of their development went well and they don't need to talk about that. Just my 0.02. Fregas - Original Message - From: "Bryan Stevenson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 2:21 PM Subject: Re: FBX3 AND CFMX > Nope..ya missed my pointCFMX migration was just an example. I've seen > lost of issues that FBers have had to workaround just to work within the > methodology. To me personally (and ain't nobody gonna change my mind) that > is counter productive. > > I've always built custom apps (tailored to meet the clients needs/standards > etc.) and I've never had any problem with other coders taking over and > understanding the whole app or the portion they need to build and slot in. > > but now we're heading towards what's better ;-) > > I got a great unbiased response from Barney and I'm happy with that. > > Cheers > > 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 Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 12:00 PM > Subject: RE: FBX3 AND CFMX > > > > Hi, > > > > If I understand your point correctly, I would argue that migrating any > > existing application, Fusebox or other, to CFMX could potentially > > require some code adjustments. For me, Fusebox has worked fine on CFMX > > with only a single modification--telling Fusebox which version of CF I'm > > using. Also, I think the benefit of standardized development practices > > is one of the features that attract developers to Fusebox. I like the > > fact that all of the developers in my department are coding in the same > > manner and that there is a large community that supports the > > methodology. If you haven't looked at it for a while, you might want to > > check out FuseQ, a Fusebox-hybrid (I think Techspedition calls it a > > "private implementation") that addresses some of the shortcomings > > (multiple fuseaction requests--per page, error handling, security, and > > etc.) of Fusebox 3. The cool thing about FuseQ, beyond the enhancements > > it delivers, is that it can be used as a replacement for all Fusebox 3 > > applications--even if you don't use the FuseQ features. > > > > I started using Fusebox during version 2 and dropped it as well--version > > 3 is much better and FuseQ adds some really useful features. > > > > http://www.techspedition.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=articles.showArticle&A > > rticleID=108 > > > > Best regards, > > MW > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Bryan Stevenson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Re: FBX3 AND CFMX
Nope..ya missed my pointCFMX migration was just an example. I've seen lost of issues that FBers have had to workaround just to work within the methodology. To me personally (and ain't nobody gonna change my mind) that is counter productive. I've always built custom apps (tailored to meet the clients needs/standards etc.) and I've never had any problem with other coders taking over and understanding the whole app or the portion they need to build and slot in. but now we're heading towards what's better ;-) I got a great unbiased response from Barney and I'm happy with that. Cheers 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 Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 12:00 PM Subject: RE: FBX3 AND CFMX > Hi, > > If I understand your point correctly, I would argue that migrating any > existing application, Fusebox or other, to CFMX could potentially > require some code adjustments. For me, Fusebox has worked fine on CFMX > with only a single modification--telling Fusebox which version of CF I'm > using. Also, I think the benefit of standardized development practices > is one of the features that attract developers to Fusebox. I like the > fact that all of the developers in my department are coding in the same > manner and that there is a large community that supports the > methodology. If you haven't looked at it for a while, you might want to > check out FuseQ, a Fusebox-hybrid (I think Techspedition calls it a > "private implementation") that addresses some of the shortcomings > (multiple fuseaction requests--per page, error handling, security, and > etc.) of Fusebox 3. The cool thing about FuseQ, beyond the enhancements > it delivers, is that it can be used as a replacement for all Fusebox 3 > applications--even if you don't use the FuseQ features. > > I started using Fusebox during version 2 and dropped it as well--version > 3 is much better and FuseQ adds some really useful features. > > http://www.techspedition.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=articles.showArticle&A > rticleID=108 > > Best regards, > MW > > -Original Message- > From: Bryan Stevenson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > It still baffles me that people use FB simply because I always see > various wrokarounds etc. because of using FB (like simply because of > switching to CFMX this or that must be re-worked). I fully understand > the "hand off to other coders and easy to update" ideal of FB, but any > well written app has those features. So I'm left wonderingwhy use > FB if it adds to your problems? > > Did most FB folks start CF using FB or adopt it along the way? > > Personally I started using a similar methodology before FB > existedsaw limitations I didn't like and dropped it. > > > ~| 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: FBX3 AND CFMX
Hi, If I understand your point correctly, I would argue that migrating any existing application, Fusebox or other, to CFMX could potentially require some code adjustments. For me, Fusebox has worked fine on CFMX with only a single modification--telling Fusebox which version of CF I'm using. Also, I think the benefit of standardized development practices is one of the features that attract developers to Fusebox. I like the fact that all of the developers in my department are coding in the same manner and that there is a large community that supports the methodology. If you haven't looked at it for a while, you might want to check out FuseQ, a Fusebox-hybrid (I think Techspedition calls it a "private implementation") that addresses some of the shortcomings (multiple fuseaction requests--per page, error handling, security, and etc.) of Fusebox 3. The cool thing about FuseQ, beyond the enhancements it delivers, is that it can be used as a replacement for all Fusebox 3 applications--even if you don't use the FuseQ features. I started using Fusebox during version 2 and dropped it as well--version 3 is much better and FuseQ adds some really useful features. http://www.techspedition.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=articles.showArticle&A rticleID=108 Best regards, MW -Original Message- From: Bryan Stevenson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] It still baffles me that people use FB simply because I always see various wrokarounds etc. because of using FB (like simply because of switching to CFMX this or that must be re-worked). I fully understand the "hand off to other coders and easy to update" ideal of FB, but any well written app has those features. So I'm left wonderingwhy use FB if it adds to your problems? Did most FB folks start CF using FB or adopt it along the way? Personally I started using a similar methodology before FB existedsaw limitations I didn't like and dropped it. ~| 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. Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
RE: FBX3 AND CFMX
I'm getting random errors when my CFFORM validation uses session variables that I don't CFLOCK in this FB3 app I'm working on. Can some one help me? > -Original Message- > From: Bryan Stevenson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 11:02 AM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: Re: FBX3 AND CFMX > > > LOL...nothing is better than CFFORM *snicker* > > 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 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.455 / Virus Database: 255 - Release Date: 2/13/2003 ~| 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: FBX3 AND CFMX
LOL...nothing is better than CFFORM *snicker* 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: "charlie griefer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 10:54 AM Subject: Re: FBX3 AND CFMX > Bryan Stevenson writes: > > > Thanks Barneystarightforward explanation without the "mines bigger than > > yours" comments ;-) > > > > I certainly don't want the "is FB good" debate either > > > > is it better than, say... CFFORM? > > /me ducks :) > > > charlie > > > > Cheers > > > > 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: "Barney Boisvert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 10:30 AM > > Subject: RE: FBX3 AND CFMX > > > > > >> I don't want to get into the quarterly "is FB good" debate, but had to > > reply > >> to this post. I'm obviously on the side of FB, but tried to make this > >> objective. I will studiously ignore any flames ;) > >> > >> FB is not perfect for any individual use, as is any piece of > > general-purpose > >> software. However, it is pretty darn good, and lets you (as the architect > >> and/or developer) concentrate on the functional pieces, rather than how > > the > >> functional pieces interact with each other. Yes it has it's problems > >> (performance being one), but they are more than made up for it it's > > ability > >> to streamline development, and instill a consistent feel to ALL code, > > which > >> makes going back and updating apps MUCH easier, especially if you haven't > >> worked with them in a long while. > >> > >> It is also viewed as overly simplistic, and it is in a lot of ways when > >> compared to other frameworks. Jakarta Struts in particular takes a very > >> similar approach to organizing the functional pieces, but brings a lot of > >> extra functionality with it (such I18N stuff) that FB doesn't. When I > >> started working with FB (after learning CF), everything was a little > >> confusing, but it made relative sense, and the underlying logic behind the > >> architecture was appearent after only a few weeks of using it. When I > >> played with Struts for a couple weeks a year ago or so, I found myself > > quite > >> confused by all the options and stuff it presented to the developer. Of > >> course, you can simply ignore a lot of it, but figuring out HOW to ignore > > it > >> was the trick. I'd have found it much easier if Struts came in a stripped > >> down format, with a set of modules that you can easily activate (kind of > >> like Apache HTTP Server). > >> > >> FB takes the route of a minimal framework that you can add stuff to. > > There > >> isn't a large set of prepared modules for adding functionality (SES is > > one, > >> I'm sure there are others), but it does strip all the extra junk out of > > the > >> framework, and let the developer only add in what he/she wants, as he/she > >> wants it. > >> > >> Conclusion: FB is good at what it does, while remaining general. It is > >> designed for a (relatively) shallow learning curve, and makes some > >> sacrifices for that. This places it in the perfect position for simpler > >> apps, but allows it to work for huge apps as well, and best of all, easily > >> allows small apps to grow into huge apps without much trouble. > >> > >> > -Original Message- > >> > From: Bryan Stevenson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > >
Re: FBX3 AND CFMX
Bryan Stevenson writes: > Thanks Barneystarightforward explanation without the "mines bigger than > yours" comments ;-) > > I certainly don't want the "is FB good" debate either > is it better than, say... CFFORM? /me ducks :) charlie > Cheers > > 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: "Barney Boisvert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 10:30 AM > Subject: RE: FBX3 AND CFMX > > >> I don't want to get into the quarterly "is FB good" debate, but had to > reply >> to this post. I'm obviously on the side of FB, but tried to make this >> objective. I will studiously ignore any flames ;) >> >> FB is not perfect for any individual use, as is any piece of > general-purpose >> software. However, it is pretty darn good, and lets you (as the architect >> and/or developer) concentrate on the functional pieces, rather than how > the >> functional pieces interact with each other. Yes it has it's problems >> (performance being one), but they are more than made up for it it's > ability >> to streamline development, and instill a consistent feel to ALL code, > which >> makes going back and updating apps MUCH easier, especially if you haven't >> worked with them in a long while. >> >> It is also viewed as overly simplistic, and it is in a lot of ways when >> compared to other frameworks. Jakarta Struts in particular takes a very >> similar approach to organizing the functional pieces, but brings a lot of >> extra functionality with it (such I18N stuff) that FB doesn't. When I >> started working with FB (after learning CF), everything was a little >> confusing, but it made relative sense, and the underlying logic behind the >> architecture was appearent after only a few weeks of using it. When I >> played with Struts for a couple weeks a year ago or so, I found myself > quite >> confused by all the options and stuff it presented to the developer. Of >> course, you can simply ignore a lot of it, but figuring out HOW to ignore > it >> was the trick. I'd have found it much easier if Struts came in a stripped >> down format, with a set of modules that you can easily activate (kind of >> like Apache HTTP Server). >> >> FB takes the route of a minimal framework that you can add stuff to. > There >> isn't a large set of prepared modules for adding functionality (SES is > one, >> I'm sure there are others), but it does strip all the extra junk out of > the >> framework, and let the developer only add in what he/she wants, as he/she >> wants it. >> >> Conclusion: FB is good at what it does, while remaining general. It is >> designed for a (relatively) shallow learning curve, and makes some >> sacrifices for that. This places it in the perfect position for simpler >> apps, but allows it to work for huge apps as well, and best of all, easily >> allows small apps to grow into huge apps without much trouble. >> >> > -Original Message- >> > From: Bryan Stevenson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >> > Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 10:17 AM >> > To: CF-Talk >> > Subject: Re: FBX3 AND CFMX >> > >> > >> > On a personal note. >> > >> > It still baffles me that people use FB simply because I always see > various >> > wrokarounds etc. because of using FB (like simply because of switching > to >> > CFMX this or that must be re-worked). I fully understand the "hand off > to >> > other coders and easy to update" ideal of FB, but any well written app > has >> > those features. So I'm left wonderingwhy use FB if it adds to your >> > problems? >> > >> > Did most FB folks start CF using FB or adopt it along the way? >> > >> > Personally I started using a similar methodology before FB > existedsaw >> > limitations I didn't like and dropped it. >> > >> > my 2 cents ;-) >> > >> > Bryan Stevenson B.Comm. >> > VP &
Re: FBX3 AND CFMX
Thanks Barneystarightforward explanation without the "mines bigger than yours" comments ;-) I certainly don't want the "is FB good" debate either Cheers 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: "Barney Boisvert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 10:30 AM Subject: RE: FBX3 AND CFMX > I don't want to get into the quarterly "is FB good" debate, but had to reply > to this post. I'm obviously on the side of FB, but tried to make this > objective. I will studiously ignore any flames ;) > > FB is not perfect for any individual use, as is any piece of general-purpose > software. However, it is pretty darn good, and lets you (as the architect > and/or developer) concentrate on the functional pieces, rather than how the > functional pieces interact with each other. Yes it has it's problems > (performance being one), but they are more than made up for it it's ability > to streamline development, and instill a consistent feel to ALL code, which > makes going back and updating apps MUCH easier, especially if you haven't > worked with them in a long while. > > It is also viewed as overly simplistic, and it is in a lot of ways when > compared to other frameworks. Jakarta Struts in particular takes a very > similar approach to organizing the functional pieces, but brings a lot of > extra functionality with it (such I18N stuff) that FB doesn't. When I > started working with FB (after learning CF), everything was a little > confusing, but it made relative sense, and the underlying logic behind the > architecture was appearent after only a few weeks of using it. When I > played with Struts for a couple weeks a year ago or so, I found myself quite > confused by all the options and stuff it presented to the developer. Of > course, you can simply ignore a lot of it, but figuring out HOW to ignore it > was the trick. I'd have found it much easier if Struts came in a stripped > down format, with a set of modules that you can easily activate (kind of > like Apache HTTP Server). > > FB takes the route of a minimal framework that you can add stuff to. There > isn't a large set of prepared modules for adding functionality (SES is one, > I'm sure there are others), but it does strip all the extra junk out of the > framework, and let the developer only add in what he/she wants, as he/she > wants it. > > Conclusion: FB is good at what it does, while remaining general. It is > designed for a (relatively) shallow learning curve, and makes some > sacrifices for that. This places it in the perfect position for simpler > apps, but allows it to work for huge apps as well, and best of all, easily > allows small apps to grow into huge apps without much trouble. > > > -Original Message- > > From: Bryan Stevenson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 10:17 AM > > To: CF-Talk > > Subject: Re: FBX3 AND CFMX > > > > > > On a personal note. > > > > It still baffles me that people use FB simply because I always see various > > wrokarounds etc. because of using FB (like simply because of switching to > > CFMX this or that must be re-worked). I fully understand the "hand off to > > other coders and easy to update" ideal of FB, but any well written app has > > those features. So I'm left wonderingwhy use FB if it adds to your > > problems? > > > > Did most FB folks start CF using FB or adopt it along the way? > > > > Personally I started using a similar methodology before FB existedsaw > > limitations I didn't like and dropped it. > > > > my 2 cents ;-) > > > > 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: "Sean A Corfield" <[EMAIL PROT
RE: FBX3 AND CFMX
I don't want to get into the quarterly "is FB good" debate, but had to reply to this post. I'm obviously on the side of FB, but tried to make this objective. I will studiously ignore any flames ;) FB is not perfect for any individual use, as is any piece of general-purpose software. However, it is pretty darn good, and lets you (as the architect and/or developer) concentrate on the functional pieces, rather than how the functional pieces interact with each other. Yes it has it's problems (performance being one), but they are more than made up for it it's ability to streamline development, and instill a consistent feel to ALL code, which makes going back and updating apps MUCH easier, especially if you haven't worked with them in a long while. It is also viewed as overly simplistic, and it is in a lot of ways when compared to other frameworks. Jakarta Struts in particular takes a very similar approach to organizing the functional pieces, but brings a lot of extra functionality with it (such I18N stuff) that FB doesn't. When I started working with FB (after learning CF), everything was a little confusing, but it made relative sense, and the underlying logic behind the architecture was appearent after only a few weeks of using it. When I played with Struts for a couple weeks a year ago or so, I found myself quite confused by all the options and stuff it presented to the developer. Of course, you can simply ignore a lot of it, but figuring out HOW to ignore it was the trick. I'd have found it much easier if Struts came in a stripped down format, with a set of modules that you can easily activate (kind of like Apache HTTP Server). FB takes the route of a minimal framework that you can add stuff to. There isn't a large set of prepared modules for adding functionality (SES is one, I'm sure there are others), but it does strip all the extra junk out of the framework, and let the developer only add in what he/she wants, as he/she wants it. Conclusion: FB is good at what it does, while remaining general. It is designed for a (relatively) shallow learning curve, and makes some sacrifices for that. This places it in the perfect position for simpler apps, but allows it to work for huge apps as well, and best of all, easily allows small apps to grow into huge apps without much trouble. > -Original Message- > From: Bryan Stevenson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 10:17 AM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: Re: FBX3 AND CFMX > > > On a personal note. > > It still baffles me that people use FB simply because I always see various > wrokarounds etc. because of using FB (like simply because of switching to > CFMX this or that must be re-worked). I fully understand the "hand off to > other coders and easy to update" ideal of FB, but any well written app has > those features. So I'm left wonderingwhy use FB if it adds to your > problems? > > Did most FB folks start CF using FB or adopt it along the way? > > Personally I started using a similar methodology before FB existedsaw > limitations I didn't like and dropped it. > > my 2 cents ;-) > > 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: "Sean A Corfield" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 8:21 AM > Subject: Re: FBX3 AND CFMX > > > > On Thursday, Feb 20, 2003, at 05:42 US/Pacific, Larry Juncker wrote: > > > Then everything works SUPER. > > > > One issue to be aware of is if any of your fbx_switch.cfm files contain > > a large number of cases *and* a lot of code - you may hit the Java > > switch/jump limit. A couple of people have reported running into that > > with FB3. Moving the big blocks of into included files solves the > > problem. I believe the CFMX Updaters have also mitigated this problem > > (can anyone comment on that?). > > > > 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: FBX3 AND CFMX
Actually, FB3 is quite nice. I've started using it extensively. As for the Java size limitation, remember that FB3 was created before CFMX was around, so no one could really have seen that. I would also say that FBMX should use something similiar to Struts, where controller information is kept within a XML file. And, as with any framework, there are limitations that may or may not matter to you. To tell the truth, there aren't very many limitations with FB3 that matter to me. - Original Message - From: Bryan Stevenson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Thursday, February 20, 2003 11:17 am Subject: Re: FBX3 AND CFMX > On a personal note. > > It still baffles me that people use FB simply because I always see > variouswrokarounds etc. because of using FB (like simply because > of switching to > CFMX this or that must be re-worked). I fully understand the > "hand off to > other coders and easy to update" ideal of FB, but any well written > app has > those features. So I'm left wonderingwhy use FB if it adds to > yourproblems? > > Did most FB folks start CF using FB or adopt it along the way? > > Personally I started using a similar methodology before FB > existedsawlimitations I didn't like and dropped it. > > my 2 cents ;-) > > 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: "Sean A Corfield" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 8:21 AM > Subject: Re: FBX3 AND CFMX > > > > On Thursday, Feb 20, 2003, at 05:42 US/Pacific, Larry Juncker wrote: > > > Then everything works SUPER. > > > > One issue to be aware of is if any of your fbx_switch.cfm files > contain> a large number of cases *and* a lot of code - you may hit > the Java > > switch/jump limit. A couple of people have reported running into > that> with FB3. Moving the big blocks of into included files > solves the > > problem. I believe the CFMX Updaters have also mitigated this > problem> (can anyone comment on that?). > > > > 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: FBX3 AND CFMX
On a personal note. It still baffles me that people use FB simply because I always see various wrokarounds etc. because of using FB (like simply because of switching to CFMX this or that must be re-worked). I fully understand the "hand off to other coders and easy to update" ideal of FB, but any well written app has those features. So I'm left wonderingwhy use FB if it adds to your problems? Did most FB folks start CF using FB or adopt it along the way? Personally I started using a similar methodology before FB existedsaw limitations I didn't like and dropped it. my 2 cents ;-) 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: "Sean A Corfield" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 8:21 AM Subject: Re: FBX3 AND CFMX > On Thursday, Feb 20, 2003, at 05:42 US/Pacific, Larry Juncker wrote: > > Then everything works SUPER. > > One issue to be aware of is if any of your fbx_switch.cfm files contain > a large number of cases *and* a lot of code - you may hit the Java > switch/jump limit. A couple of people have reported running into that > with FB3. Moving the big blocks of into included files solves the > problem. I believe the CFMX Updaters have also mitigated this problem > (can anyone comment on that?). > > 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: FBX3 AND CFMX
Cheers Sean! -Original Message- From: Sean A Corfield [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 20 February 2003 16:22 To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: FBX3 AND CFMX On Thursday, Feb 20, 2003, at 05:42 US/Pacific, Larry Juncker wrote: > Then everything works SUPER. One issue to be aware of is if any of your fbx_switch.cfm files contain a large number of cases *and* a lot of code - you may hit the Java switch/jump limit. A couple of people have reported running into that with FB3. Moving the big blocks of into included files solves the problem. I believe the CFMX Updaters have also mitigated this problem (can anyone comment on that?). 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: FBX3 AND CFMX
On Thursday, Feb 20, 2003, at 05:42 US/Pacific, Larry Juncker wrote: > Then everything works SUPER. One issue to be aware of is if any of your fbx_switch.cfm files contain a large number of cases *and* a lot of code - you may hit the Java switch/jump limit. A couple of people have reported running into that with FB3. Moving the big blocks of into included files solves the problem. I believe the CFMX Updaters have also mitigated this problem (can anyone comment on that?). 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 Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
RE: FBX3 AND CFMX
Hi, I hate to jump on the "me too" train, but I'm gonna do it anyway. I'd like to see what you have done in regards to a Fb3 to CFC conversion. Thanks :), MW -Original Message- From: Mike Brunt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] If anyone would like a copy please let me know, it will be later on today before we will respond. ~| 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: FBX3 AND CFMX
Yea sure mike, include me in that. -Original Message- From: Mike Brunt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 20 February 2003 15:04 To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: FBX3 AND CFMX To answer your question we have ported many FB3 apps over to CFMX with no problems. The only caveat is if there are many multi-nested includes/modules/custtags. We also have completed work on a Fusebox 3.0 sample app conversion (Taskmanager) to a version that is using CFCs; it is a good transitionary example for those wanting to see where Fusebox is going under MX. If anyone would like a copy please let me know, it will be later on today before we will respond. Kind Regards - Mike Brunt Webapper Services LLC Web Site http://www.webapper.com Blog http://www.webapper.net Webapper -Original Message- From: Larry Juncker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 5:57 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: FBX3 AND CFMX >>>I am receiving though, strange. John, if this is the case, be certain that the email address that is set up in your email client for outgoing is the same that you are receiving through. I signed up for a talk list at home and tried submitting from work, and was turned down a post until I went in and added my work address as an acceptable address on my account. Larry Juncker Senior Cold fusion Developer Heartland Communications Group, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] (515) 574-2122 CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE The information contained in this e-mail is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. This e-mail may contain information that is privileged, confidential and/or personal. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient (or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient), you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us at the e-mail listed above. -Original Message- From: John McCosker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 4:44 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: FBX3 AND CFMX Hi, just wondering, is there any issues with FBX3 and MX, our will it run fine as it does under 5.0, I know this is a topica question really, but I'm having problems sending to the list, I am recieving though, strange. Respectfully, J ~| 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. Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
RE: FBX3 AND CFMX
To answer your question we have ported many FB3 apps over to CFMX with no problems. The only caveat is if there are many multi-nested includes/modules/custtags. We also have completed work on a Fusebox 3.0 sample app conversion (Taskmanager) to a version that is using CFCs; it is a good transitionary example for those wanting to see where Fusebox is going under MX. If anyone would like a copy please let me know, it will be later on today before we will respond. Kind Regards - Mike Brunt Webapper Services LLC Web Site http://www.webapper.com Blog http://www.webapper.net Webapper -Original Message- From: Larry Juncker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 5:57 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: FBX3 AND CFMX >>>I am receiving though, strange. John, if this is the case, be certain that the email address that is set up in your email client for outgoing is the same that you are receiving through. I signed up for a talk list at home and tried submitting from work, and was turned down a post until I went in and added my work address as an acceptable address on my account. Larry Juncker Senior Cold fusion Developer Heartland Communications Group, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] (515) 574-2122 CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE The information contained in this e-mail is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. This e-mail may contain information that is privileged, confidential and/or personal. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient (or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient), you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us at the e-mail listed above. -Original Message- From: John McCosker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 4:44 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: FBX3 AND CFMX Hi, just wondering, is there any issues with FBX3 and MX, our will it run fine as it does under 5.0, I know this is a topica question really, but I'm having problems sending to the list, I am recieving though, strange. Respectfully, J ~| 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: FBX3 AND CFMX
>>>I am receiving though, strange. John, if this is the case, be certain that the email address that is set up in your email client for outgoing is the same that you are receiving through. I signed up for a talk list at home and tried submitting from work, and was turned down a post until I went in and added my work address as an acceptable address on my account. Larry Juncker Senior Cold fusion Developer Heartland Communications Group, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] (515) 574-2122 CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE The information contained in this e-mail is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. This e-mail may contain information that is privileged, confidential and/or personal. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient (or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient), you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us at the e-mail listed above. -Original Message- From: John McCosker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 4:44 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: FBX3 AND CFMX Hi, just wondering, is there any issues with FBX3 and MX, our will it run fine as it does under 5.0, I know this is a topica question really, but I'm having problems sending to the list, I am recieving though, strange. Respectfully, J ~| 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: FBX3 AND CFMX
Cheers Larry. :) -Original Message- From: Larry Juncker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 20 February 2003 13:43 To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: FBX3 AND CFMX The INDEX.cfm file for Fusebox 3 contains the following code: I found that on MX, we had to make the following change in the index.cfm file The needed to be edited to read: because cfmx is reported as 600 Then everything works SUPER. Just my 2 cents worth Larry Juncker Senior Cold fusion Developer Heartland Communications Group, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] (515) 574-2122 CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE The information contained in this e-mail is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. This e-mail may contain information that is privileged, confidential and/or personal. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient (or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient), you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us at the e-mail listed above. -Original Message- From: John McCosker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 4:44 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: FBX3 AND CFMX Hi, just wondering, is there any issues with FBX3 and MX, our will it run fine as it does under 5.0, I know this is a topica question really, but I'm having problems sending to the list, I am recieving though, strange. Respectfully, J ~| 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: FBX3 AND CFMX
The INDEX.cfm file for Fusebox 3 contains the following code: I found that on MX, we had to make the following change in the index.cfm file The needed to be edited to read: because cfmx is reported as 600 Then everything works SUPER. Just my 2 cents worth Larry Juncker Senior Cold fusion Developer Heartland Communications Group, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] (515) 574-2122 CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE The information contained in this e-mail is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. This e-mail may contain information that is privileged, confidential and/or personal. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient (or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient), you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us at the e-mail listed above. -Original Message- From: John McCosker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 4:44 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: FBX3 AND CFMX Hi, just wondering, is there any issues with FBX3 and MX, our will it run fine as it does under 5.0, I know this is a topica question really, but I'm having problems sending to the list, I am recieving though, strange. Respectfully, J ~| 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 Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
RE: FBX3 AND CFMX
Actually that was one of my concerns, cheers, //Can I just say that you had better test this on a staging box first. come on, I'm not stuuuppiiiddd. J -Original Message- From: Andre Mohamed [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 20 February 2003 11:58 To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: FBX3 AND CFMX One small note with FBX3 and CFMX - just need to make sure that in your index.cfm you include the CF5 core file (even though you are running on CFMX) e.g. Everything else works same as on 5. As for performance, no issues have arisen so far - debugging execution times can be a little tricky as MX tends to accumulate execution times into the core file rather than the separate includes and custom tags that make up the page on some occasions. André -Original Message- From: Adam Reynolds [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 20 February 2003 11:37 To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: FBX3 AND CFMX Yes. You deliver code in half the time, can hand it on easily to people, working out how to do updates is simpler and can estimate more precisely so you can come in under budget. :) As to performance issues. Not really had any that I am aware of. > -Original Message- > From: Kola Oyedeji [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: 20 February 2003 11:31 > To: CF-Talk > Subject: RE: FBX3 AND CFMX > > > Any performance issues? > > Kola > > >> -Original Message- > >> From: John McCosker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > >> Sent: 20 February 2003 11:16 > >> To: CF-Talk > >> Subject: RE: FBX3 AND CFMX > >> > >> WhHo!! > >> Right, lets Migrate this baby. > >> > >> -Original Message----- > >> From: Adam Reynolds [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > >> Sent: 20 February 2003 11:19 > >> To: CF-Talk > >> Subject: RE: FBX3 AND CFMX > >> > >> > >> No problems. Running smoothly. > >> > >> > -Original Message- > >> > From: John McCosker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > >> > Sent: 20 February 2003 10:44 > >> > To: CF-Talk > >> > Subject: FBX3 AND CFMX > >> > > >> > > >> > Hi, > >> > > >> > just wondering, is there any issues with FBX3 and MX, > >> > our will it run fine as it does under 5.0, > >> > > >> > I know this is a topica question really, but I'm having problems > >> > sending to > >> > the list, > >> > I am recieving though, strange. > >> > > >> > Respectfully, > >> > > >> > J > >> > > >> > >> > > ~| 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: FBX3 AND CFMX
One small note with FBX3 and CFMX - just need to make sure that in your index.cfm you include the CF5 core file (even though you are running on CFMX) e.g. Everything else works same as on 5. As for performance, no issues have arisen so far - debugging execution times can be a little tricky as MX tends to accumulate execution times into the core file rather than the separate includes and custom tags that make up the page on some occasions. André -Original Message- From: Adam Reynolds [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 20 February 2003 11:37 To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: FBX3 AND CFMX Yes. You deliver code in half the time, can hand it on easily to people, working out how to do updates is simpler and can estimate more precisely so you can come in under budget. :) As to performance issues. Not really had any that I am aware of. > -Original Message- > From: Kola Oyedeji [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: 20 February 2003 11:31 > To: CF-Talk > Subject: RE: FBX3 AND CFMX > > > Any performance issues? > > Kola > > >> -Original Message- > >> From: John McCosker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > >> Sent: 20 February 2003 11:16 > >> To: CF-Talk > >> Subject: RE: FBX3 AND CFMX > >> > >> WhHo!! > >> Right, lets Migrate this baby. > >> > >> -Original Message----- > >> From: Adam Reynolds [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > >> Sent: 20 February 2003 11:19 > >> To: CF-Talk > >> Subject: RE: FBX3 AND CFMX > >> > >> > >> No problems. Running smoothly. > >> > >> > -Original Message- > >> > From: John McCosker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > >> > Sent: 20 February 2003 10:44 > >> > To: CF-Talk > >> > Subject: FBX3 AND CFMX > >> > > >> > > >> > Hi, > >> > > >> > just wondering, is there any issues with FBX3 and MX, > >> > our will it run fine as it does under 5.0, > >> > > >> > I know this is a topica question really, but I'm having problems > >> > sending to > >> > the list, > >> > I am recieving though, strange. > >> > > >> > Respectfully, > >> > > >> > J > >> > > >> > >> > > ~| 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: FBX3 AND CFMX
Yes. You deliver code in half the time, can hand it on easily to people, working out how to do updates is simpler and can estimate more precisely so you can come in under budget. :) As to performance issues. Not really had any that I am aware of. > -Original Message- > From: Kola Oyedeji [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: 20 February 2003 11:31 > To: CF-Talk > Subject: RE: FBX3 AND CFMX > > > Any performance issues? > > Kola > > >> -Original Message- > >> From: John McCosker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > >> Sent: 20 February 2003 11:16 > >> To: CF-Talk > >> Subject: RE: FBX3 AND CFMX > >> > >> WhHo!! > >> Right, lets Migrate this baby. > >> > >> -Original Message----- > >> From: Adam Reynolds [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > >> Sent: 20 February 2003 11:19 > >> To: CF-Talk > >> Subject: RE: FBX3 AND CFMX > >> > >> > >> No problems. Running smoothly. > >> > >> > -Original Message- > >> > From: John McCosker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > >> > Sent: 20 February 2003 10:44 > >> > To: CF-Talk > >> > Subject: FBX3 AND CFMX > >> > > >> > > >> > Hi, > >> > > >> > just wondering, is there any issues with FBX3 and MX, > >> > our will it run fine as it does under 5.0, > >> > > >> > I know this is a topica question really, but I'm having problems > >> > sending to > >> > the list, > >> > I am recieving though, strange. > >> > > >> > Respectfully, > >> > > >> > J > >> > > >> > >> > > ~| 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 Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
RE: FBX3 AND CFMX
Any performance issues? Kola >> -Original Message- >> From: John McCosker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >> Sent: 20 February 2003 11:16 >> To: CF-Talk >> Subject: RE: FBX3 AND CFMX >> >> WhHo!! >> Right, lets Migrate this baby. >> >> -Original Message- >> From: Adam Reynolds [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >> Sent: 20 February 2003 11:19 >> To: CF-Talk >> Subject: RE: FBX3 AND CFMX >> >> >> No problems. Running smoothly. >> >> > -Original Message- >> > From: John McCosker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >> > Sent: 20 February 2003 10:44 >> > To: CF-Talk >> > Subject: FBX3 AND CFMX >> > >> > >> > Hi, >> > >> > just wondering, is there any issues with FBX3 and MX, >> > our will it run fine as it does under 5.0, >> > >> > I know this is a topica question really, but I'm having problems >> > sending to >> > the list, >> > I am recieving though, strange. >> > >> > Respectfully, >> > >> > J >> > >> >> ~| 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 Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
RE: FBX3 AND CFMX
Can I just say that you had better test this on a staging box first. Not gonna have you suing my arse cos you took my word for it :P > -Original Message- > From: John McCosker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: 20 February 2003 11:16 > To: CF-Talk > Subject: RE: FBX3 AND CFMX > > > WhHo!! > Right, lets Migrate this baby. > > -Original Message- > From: Adam Reynolds [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: 20 February 2003 11:19 > To: CF-Talk > Subject: RE: FBX3 AND CFMX > > > No problems. Running smoothly. > > > -Original Message- > > From: John McCosker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: 20 February 2003 10:44 > > To: CF-Talk > > Subject: FBX3 AND CFMX > > > > > > Hi, > > > > just wondering, is there any issues with FBX3 and MX, > > our will it run fine as it does under 5.0, > > > > I know this is a topica question really, but I'm having problems > > sending to > > the list, > > I am recieving though, strange. > > > > Respectfully, > > > > J > > > > ~| 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: FBX3 AND CFMX
WhHo!! Right, lets Migrate this baby. -Original Message- From: Adam Reynolds [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 20 February 2003 11:19 To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: FBX3 AND CFMX No problems. Running smoothly. > -Original Message- > From: John McCosker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: 20 February 2003 10:44 > To: CF-Talk > Subject: FBX3 AND CFMX > > > Hi, > > just wondering, is there any issues with FBX3 and MX, > our will it run fine as it does under 5.0, > > I know this is a topica question really, but I'm having problems > sending to > the list, > I am recieving though, strange. > > Respectfully, > > J > ~| 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: FBX3 AND CFMX
No problems. Running smoothly. > -Original Message- > From: John McCosker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: 20 February 2003 10:44 > To: CF-Talk > Subject: FBX3 AND CFMX > > > Hi, > > just wondering, is there any issues with FBX3 and MX, > our will it run fine as it does under 5.0, > > I know this is a topica question really, but I'm having problems > sending to > the list, > I am recieving though, strange. > > Respectfully, > > J > ~| 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. Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
