RE: Fusebox - opinions?
Costas, Not that you care, others might - the following email is from one of the founders of Fusebox, Steve Nelson. His message is in regards to the '6174' counter on the FB site. Steve says, "That's just the number of people that have created accounts on Fusebox.org. Since there isn't much of an incentive to create accounts, that number is probably pretty low. The point of it is that people ARE standardizing on the free Fusebox framework and that number grows every day. Hell, it's 6191 right now. A friend of mine once told me: "You know you're famous when people start suing you". I wouldn't worry too much about people bashing Fusebox. Bad press is still press. In the four years I've been doing this, I've found that people that bash Fusebox tend to bash everything anyway. Very few of them have looked at Fusebox very closely. Tell this guy to join in the Fusebox community and voice his concerns on the Fusebox list. The Fusebox community listens to ideas, if they're good ones, we add them into the spec. Nothing will get changed by voicing concerns on cf-talk." - Steve Nelson Joseph DeVore VeloxWeb Technologies -Original Message- From: Costas Piliotis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 3:07 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Fusebox - opinions? Here's a quote from fusebox.org: Fusebox is a FREE web application standard in use by 6174 people from around the world 6174. Around the world. Hmmm... I know there's 100 or so active cfug members in Vancouver, BC. Given the amount of metropolitan areas in US and Canada, not to mention parts of Europe, I'd think that number is kinda small... -Original Message- From: Zac Belado [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 2:26 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Fusebox - opinions? > I think the difference is that there is a good chance that an outside > contractor might already know Fusebox. That won't be the case for > something custom. Maybe this is a regional thing but none of the developers I know use Fusebox at all. Just how many people actively use fusebox? I hear people mention that developers or contractors will be familiar with it but has anyone ever done any sort of polling to determine this? If not its mostly just an anecdotal comment isn't it? ~~ Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
Re: Fusebox - opinions?
>1. Pros? Cons? Opinions? I've generally only seen good >feedback, but I thought I'd see... I can't recommend Fusebox at this point... the official version is a study in overkill that tries to define the "right way" for your apps to be built. Some folks love that aspect of it, of course, but I have no patience for the whole thing. OTOH, I highly recommend using a fusebox. The fundamental idea is very useful. To me, the key is to just look at the core concept: Routing all requests through a central hub creates a handy, self-documenting "map" of an application's flow, allows modularization without tons of nested includes, and provides a mechanism for turning basic security (or whatever) features on and off on a per-request basis without a lot of conditional or "hidden" code. Everything else is just extra, and may be completely unnecessary in any given situation. You don't need to move incoming variables into a unified scope, you don't need to nest fuseboxes, you don't need to wrap the whole thing in cf_bodycontent/cfsavecontent and delay rendering, or anything else... there's a ton of benefit to be had from the simple beauty of a CFSWITCH. Not that I'm discouraging use of the extras... there are all kinds of interesting things you can do, above and beyond the basics. But you don't have to use Fusebox and its trappings to make use of a fusebox. -- Roger ~~ Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
RE: Fusebox - opinions?
That number was the one provided by www.fusebox.org, which I cited in my email. They make the damn product, which IMHO, that makes them more an authority than anyone else. Now lets compare that to http://php.weblogs.com/popularity Statistics. 900,000+ pages found with url.cfm . 6000 developers. 900,000 Hits. Not an accurate guage, but I'd say that entails that the usage is not necessarily all too great. -Original Message- From: Ken Wilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 3:18 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Fusebox - opinions? > I'd think that number is kinda small... Compared to what? What would you guess that number was based upon...what was the likely source? Ken ~~ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
RE: Fusebox - opinions?
Zac, You might be right, but I must admit I don't know that many developers personally. The ones I do know, however, don't use Fusebox. I think what would be helpful for people is a study that not only shows the PROS and CONS of Fusebox, but an actual application that is written with Fusebox versus a "regular" methodology. Of course, you run the risk of people saying... "But that study is comparing Fusebox to x methodology..." If you take 10 developers' coding methods, none Fusebox, and study them, you'll probably see 10 different ways to do the same thing; some better than others. So the question is, for me, is Fusebox comprised of the best, most efficient coding techniques, while maintaining simplicity? Since ColdFusion is an interpreted language, too much complexity in that tier seems to go against the ideals of the language. For instance, I've looked over CFObjects and I think it was created by very talented individuals. For me, it doesn't do anything that will speed up my development time, or the actual finished application. It adds complexity to a simple language, in my opinion. After about 2 1/2 years, I've finally developed my own standard for coding ColdFusion applications that I feel comfortable with, replete with directory naming conventions, file naming conventions, and a simple yet effective way to port my code to any machine (given the software requirements of the ColdFusion version they may be running), and many other techniques I've learned over time that make my life easier. There are many things to take into account when sticking to a standard. I am constanly saying "What if I need to do x? Is doing x reasonable? Is my methodology capable of handling doing x?" I think asking questions like that, regardless of what methodology you use, will help you finally settle on either a methodology that is already in place, or turn you in the direction of creating your own, or taking the existing and creating a hybrid. Anyone that is a competent ColdFusion developer can learn Fusebox, whether it's required by an employer or just the individual need to learn something new. Worry about learning the language well, first. Then you can evaluate any methodology based on what it does to make your coding faster and easier to manage. -Andy > -Original Message- > From: Zac Belado [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 5:26 PM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: RE: Fusebox - opinions? > > > > I think the difference is that there is a good chance that an outside > > contractor might already know Fusebox. That won't be the case for > > something custom. > > Maybe this is a regional thing but none of the developers I know > use Fusebox > at all. Just how many people actively use fusebox? > > I hear people mention that developers or contractors will be familiar with > it but has anyone ever done any sort of polling to determine this? > > If not its mostly just an anecdotal comment isn't it? > ~~ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
RE: Fusebox - opinions?
> > I'd think that number is kinda small... > Compared to what? ~~ Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
RE: Fusebox - opinions?
> I'd think that number is kinda small... Compared to what? What would you guess that number was based upon...what was the likely source? Ken ~~ Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
RE: Fusebox - opinions?
Here's a quote from fusebox.org: Fusebox is a FREE web application standard in use by 6174 people from around the world 6174. Around the world. Hmmm... I know there's 100 or so active cfug members in Vancouver, BC. Given the amount of metropolitan areas in US and Canada, not to mention parts of Europe, I'd think that number is kinda small... -Original Message- From: Zac Belado [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 2:26 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Fusebox - opinions? > I think the difference is that there is a good chance that an outside > contractor might already know Fusebox. That won't be the case for > something custom. Maybe this is a regional thing but none of the developers I know use Fusebox at all. Just how many people actively use fusebox? I hear people mention that developers or contractors will be familiar with it but has anyone ever done any sort of polling to determine this? If not its mostly just an anecdotal comment isn't it? ~~ 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 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
RE: Fusebox - opinions?
Billy gets the cf_trophy for post of the day., -Original Message- From: BILLY CRAVENS [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 3:57 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: Fusebox - opinions? You're right, that isn't always possible, but I agree with the principle Jeffry was discussing. There's far too many "methodology" developers out there. Whether it's Fusebox, "Session" dependent development, or whatever, it's unfortunate that many developers are a bit narrow minded (in their overall knowledge - I don't mean that as a personal attack). That's why I'm a big fan of not teaching methodologies to beginning developers. Methodologies leverage the language, not vice versa. (I've seen developers who have developed in nothing but Fusebox cower at the form scope, running away, screaming "CF_FormURL2Attributes, where art thou? Rescue me from thy savage beast!" :) - Original Message - From: "Craig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 2:45 PM Subject: Re: Fusebox - opinions? > You know, its all nice to have the original developer explain his > methodology but sometimes that just isn't possible. > > -Craig > > - Original Message - > From: "Bryan Stevenson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 2:37 PM > Subject: Re: Fusebox - opinions? > > > > Here Here! > > > > Bryan Stevenson > > VP & Director of E-Commerce Development > > Electric Edge Systems Group Inc. > > p. 250.920.8830 > > e. [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > ----- > > Allaire Alliance Partner > > www.allaire.com > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "Jeffry Houser" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 3:32 PM > > Subject: RE: Fusebox - opinions? > > > > > > > Yes, but any developer worth his salt should be able to pick up a > > > *documented* methodology and work within it given an hour or so to look > > > over the documentation. I was on a project, where the first thing they > > did > > > was have me sit down with the lead developer. He dictated everything > from > > > the directory structure of the project to the casing (I.E. upper / lower > > > case of the letters ) to use for SQL statements. I took notes, and > there > > > was never a problem. > > > In addition to a methodology, properly documented code should be > easily > > > picked up. > > > > > > > > > At 03:05 PM 11/19/2001 -0500, you wrote: > > > >The problem with making your own methodology up is that only the people > > you > > > >have taight it to will know it, the benefit of fusebox and any other > > popular > > > >methodology is that there are support forums, sample applications, and > > white > > > >papers that you can work off of. > > > > > > > >Robert Everland III > > > >Dixon Ticonderoga > > > >Web Developer Extraordinaire > > > > > > > >-Original Message- > > > >From: Zac Belado [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > >Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 3:06 PM > > > >To: CF-Talk > > > >Subject: RE: Fusebox - opinions? > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you are > > > > > looking to try and instill good disciplines and readability in your > > code > > > > > Fusebox is also good for that. > > > > > > > >This presumes that the developers know fusebox. > > > > > > > >You could also get this same benefit from documenting your methods and > > > >making sure your developers follow a single standard. > > > > > > > >Fusebox doesn't bring anything to development (in these terms) that any > > > >other documented methodology would. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ~~ Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
RE: Fusebox - opinions?
> I think the difference is that there is a good chance that an outside > contractor might already know Fusebox. That won't be the case for > something custom. Maybe this is a regional thing but none of the developers I know use Fusebox at all. Just how many people actively use fusebox? I hear people mention that developers or contractors will be familiar with it but has anyone ever done any sort of polling to determine this? If not its mostly just an anecdotal comment isn't it? ~~ Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
RE: Fusebox - opinions?
Not to mention the fact you get to be lazier because somebody has already done the documentation for you and it's readily available. Instead of coming up with a bunch of documentation I tediously created and walking the new developer through it I can just say, go to this site and read up. Come back when your done. Lazy is good. Rick -Original Message- From: Kevin Miller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 3:25 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Fusebox - opinions? I think the difference is that there is a good chance that an outside contractor might already know Fusebox. That won't be the case for something custom. Kevin >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 11/19/01 01:13PM >>> If someone led you to believe there was a real difference...they were mistaken. -Original Message- From: Zac Belado [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 4:11 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Fusebox - opinions? > I know if I need more developers on a project I don't have to waste time > teaching them from the ground up, they can learn on their own. I really fail to see how this is any different than learning any developmental methodology. If someone has to read my methodology docs or someone has to read the fusebox docs they are still spending time reading and learning. What's the difference? ~~ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
RE: Fusebox - opinions?
I think the difference is that there is a good chance that an outside contractor might already know Fusebox. That won't be the case for something custom. Kevin >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 11/19/01 01:13PM >>> If someone led you to believe there was a real difference...they were mistaken. -Original Message- From: Zac Belado [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 4:11 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Fusebox - opinions? > I know if I need more developers on a project I don't have to waste time > teaching them from the ground up, they can learn on their own. I really fail to see how this is any different than learning any developmental methodology. If someone has to read my methodology docs or someone has to read the fusebox docs they are still spending time reading and learning. What's the difference? ~~ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
RE: Fusebox - opinions?
> If someone led you to believe there was a real difference...they were > mistaken. ~~ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
Re: Fusebox - opinions?
That's why I am very for looking at multiple methodologies and for that matter, any code from other developers. Having everything in the ATTRIBUTES scope is pretty nice though because somethimes I need the same variable passed from url, form or from CFMODULE. Fusebox is no excuse for not learning the guts of the CF language. It should educate you, not stupify you. -Craig - Original Message - From: "BILLY CRAVENS" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 2:57 PM Subject: Re: Fusebox - opinions? > You're right, that isn't always possible, but I agree with the principle > Jeffry was discussing. There's far too many "methodology" developers out > there. Whether it's Fusebox, "Session" dependent development, or whatever, > it's unfortunate that many developers are a bit narrow minded (in their > overall knowledge - I don't mean that as a personal attack). That's why I'm > a big fan of not teaching methodologies to beginning developers. > Methodologies leverage the language, not vice versa. (I've seen developers > who have developed in nothing but Fusebox cower at the form scope, running > away, screaming "CF_FormURL2Attributes, where art thou? Rescue me from thy > savage beast!" :) > > - Original Message - > From: "Craig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 2:45 PM > Subject: Re: Fusebox - opinions? > > > > You know, its all nice to have the original developer explain his > > methodology but sometimes that just isn't possible. > > > > -Craig > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "Bryan Stevenson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 2:37 PM > > Subject: Re: Fusebox - opinions? > > > > > > > Here Here! > > > > > > Bryan Stevenson > > > VP & Director of E-Commerce Development > > > Electric Edge Systems Group Inc. > > > p. 250.920.8830 > > > e. [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > - > > > Allaire Alliance Partner > > > www.allaire.com > > > > > > - Original Message - > > > From: "Jeffry Houser" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 3:32 PM > > > Subject: RE: Fusebox - opinions? > > > > > > > > > > Yes, but any developer worth his salt should be able to pick up a > > > > *documented* methodology and work within it given an hour or so to > look > > > > over the documentation. I was on a project, where the first thing > they > > > did > > > > was have me sit down with the lead developer. He dictated everything > > from > > > > the directory structure of the project to the casing (I.E. upper / > lower > > > > case of the letters ) to use for SQL statements. I took notes, and > > there > > > > was never a problem. > > > > In addition to a methodology, properly documented code should be > > easily > > > > picked up. > > > > > > > > > > > > At 03:05 PM 11/19/2001 -0500, you wrote: > > > > >The problem with making your own methodology up is that only the > people > > > you > > > > >have taight it to will know it, the benefit of fusebox and any other > > > popular > > > > >methodology is that there are support forums, sample applications, > and > > > white > > > > >papers that you can work off of. > > > > > > > > > >Robert Everland III > > > > >Dixon Ticonderoga > > > > >Web Developer Extraordinaire > > > > > > > > > >-Original Message- > > > > >From: Zac Belado [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > > >Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 3:06 PM > > > > >To: CF-Talk > > > > >Subject: RE: Fusebox - opinions? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you are > > > > > > looking to try and instill good disciplines and readability in > your > > > code > > > > > > Fusebox is also good for that. > > > > > > > > > >This presumes that the developers know fusebox. > > > > > > > > > >You could also get this same benefit from documenting your methods > and > > > > >making sure your developers follow a single standard. > > > > > > > > > >Fusebox doesn't bring anything to development (in these terms) that > any > > > > >other documented methodology would. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ~~ Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
RE: Fusebox - opinions?
If someone led you to believe there was a real difference...they were mistaken. -Original Message- From: Zac Belado [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 4:11 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Fusebox - opinions? > I know if I need more developers on a project I don't have to waste time > teaching them from the ground up, they can learn on their own. I really fail to see how this is any different than learning any developmental methodology. If someone has to read my methodology docs or someone has to read the fusebox docs they are still spending time reading and learning. What's the difference? ~~ Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
Re: Fusebox - opinions?
You're right, that isn't always possible, but I agree with the principle Jeffry was discussing. There's far too many "methodology" developers out there. Whether it's Fusebox, "Session" dependent development, or whatever, it's unfortunate that many developers are a bit narrow minded (in their overall knowledge - I don't mean that as a personal attack). That's why I'm a big fan of not teaching methodologies to beginning developers. Methodologies leverage the language, not vice versa. (I've seen developers who have developed in nothing but Fusebox cower at the form scope, running away, screaming "CF_FormURL2Attributes, where art thou? Rescue me from thy savage beast!" :) - Original Message - From: "Craig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 2:45 PM Subject: Re: Fusebox - opinions? > You know, its all nice to have the original developer explain his > methodology but sometimes that just isn't possible. > > -Craig > > - Original Message - > From: "Bryan Stevenson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 2:37 PM > Subject: Re: Fusebox - opinions? > > > > Here Here! > > > > Bryan Stevenson > > VP & Director of E-Commerce Development > > Electric Edge Systems Group Inc. > > p. 250.920.8830 > > e. [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > ----- > > Allaire Alliance Partner > > www.allaire.com > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "Jeffry Houser" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 3:32 PM > > Subject: RE: Fusebox - opinions? > > > > > > > Yes, but any developer worth his salt should be able to pick up a > > > *documented* methodology and work within it given an hour or so to look > > > over the documentation. I was on a project, where the first thing they > > did > > > was have me sit down with the lead developer. He dictated everything > from > > > the directory structure of the project to the casing (I.E. upper / lower > > > case of the letters ) to use for SQL statements. I took notes, and > there > > > was never a problem. > > > In addition to a methodology, properly documented code should be > easily > > > picked up. > > > > > > > > > At 03:05 PM 11/19/2001 -0500, you wrote: > > > >The problem with making your own methodology up is that only the people > > you > > > >have taight it to will know it, the benefit of fusebox and any other > > popular > > > >methodology is that there are support forums, sample applications, and > > white > > > >papers that you can work off of. > > > > > > > >Robert Everland III > > > >Dixon Ticonderoga > > > >Web Developer Extraordinaire > > > > > > > >-Original Message- > > > >From: Zac Belado [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > >Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 3:06 PM > > > >To: CF-Talk > > > >Subject: RE: Fusebox - opinions? > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you are > > > > > looking to try and instill good disciplines and readability in your > > code > > > > > Fusebox is also good for that. > > > > > > > >This presumes that the developers know fusebox. > > > > > > > >You could also get this same benefit from documenting your methods and > > > >making sure your developers follow a single standard. > > > > > > > >Fusebox doesn't bring anything to development (in these terms) that any > > > >other documented methodology would. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ~~ Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
RE: Fusebox - opinions?
Personally I use fusebox and like it but it's a scaled down version of fusebox, I kinda modified it to my liking... Haven't run into problems yet but I don't have any SUPER high traffic cf sites. Kelly ~~ 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 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
RE: Fusebox - opinions?
> I know if I need more developers on a project I don't have to waste time > teaching them from the ground up, they can learn on their own. I really fail to see how this is any different than learning any developmental methodology. If someone has to read my methodology docs or someone has to read the fusebox docs they are still spending time reading and learning. What's the difference? ~~ 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 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
Re: Fusebox - opinions?
Of course, if it's a documented methodology... You can just refer to the documentation to find out how things was. ( the keyword in my original post was *DOCUMENTED* ) At 02:45 PM 11/19/2001 -0600, you wrote: >You know, its all nice to have the original developer explain his >methodology but sometimes that just isn't possible. > >-Craig > >- Original Message - >From: "Bryan Stevenson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 2:37 PM >Subject: Re: Fusebox - opinions? > > > > Here Here! > > > > Bryan Stevenson > > VP & Director of E-Commerce Development > > Electric Edge Systems Group Inc. > > p. 250.920.8830 > > e. [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > - > > Allaire Alliance Partner > > www.allaire.com > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "Jeffry Houser" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 3:32 PM > > Subject: RE: Fusebox - opinions? > > > > > > > Yes, but any developer worth his salt should be able to pick up a > > > *documented* methodology and work within it given an hour or so to look > > > over the documentation. I was on a project, where the first thing they > > did > > > was have me sit down with the lead developer. He dictated everything >from > > > the directory structure of the project to the casing (I.E. upper / lower > > > case of the letters ) to use for SQL statements. I took notes, and >there > > > was never a problem. > > > In addition to a methodology, properly documented code should be >easily > > > picked up. > > > > > > > > > At 03:05 PM 11/19/2001 -0500, you wrote: > > > >The problem with making your own methodology up is that only the people > > you > > > >have taight it to will know it, the benefit of fusebox and any other > > popular > > > >methodology is that there are support forums, sample applications, and > > white > > > >papers that you can work off of. > > > > > > > >Robert Everland III > > > >Dixon Ticonderoga > > > >Web Developer Extraordinaire > > > > > > > >-Original Message- > > > >From: Zac Belado [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > >Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 3:06 PM > > > >To: CF-Talk > > > >Subject: RE: Fusebox - opinions? > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you are > > > > > looking to try and instill good disciplines and readability in your > > code > > > > > Fusebox is also good for that. > > > > > > > >This presumes that the developers know fusebox. > > > > > > > >You could also get this same benefit from documenting your methods and > > > >making sure your developers follow a single standard. > > > > > > > >Fusebox doesn't bring anything to development (in these terms) that any > > > >other documented methodology would. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ~~ Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
RE: Fusebox - opinions?
At 03:37 PM 11/19/2001 -0500, you wrote: >You're right any developer should. Doesn't mean they will be able to. And >why bother sitting at a meeting where someone dictates those things to you, >you can pop on the web and learn everything you need to know. Hey, I'm sure if they had spent time to document it on there intranet site ( or given me a paper copy ) that would have been a viable option. No single methodology can be used for every situation. >having these little tiffs back and forth >do nothing to help coding, I'll drink to ya there. -- Jeffry Houser | mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] AIM: Reboog711 | ICQ: 5246969 | Fax / Phone: 860-223-7946 -- DotComIt: Database Driven Web Data My Book: Instant ColdFusion 5 | http://www.instantcoldfusion.com My New Book: ColdFusion: A Beginner's Guide due out next February -- Far Cry Fly, Alternative Folk Rock http://www.farcryfly.com | http://www.mp3.com/FarCryFly -- ~~ Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
RE: Fusebox - opinions?
> The problem with making your own methodology up is that only the > people you > have taight it to will know it, But that's another issue altogether is it not? >the benefit of fusebox and any > other popular > methodology is that there are support forums, sample > applications, and white > papers that you can work off of. And this is still time that has to be invested before you can write any code. Six of one... You're going to need to invest a significant amount of time no matter what you do. ~~ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
RE: Fusebox - opinions?
And over the last 15 years...how many developers have you followed or worked with (with regard to their code of course) have been worth their weight in salt? -Original Message- From: Jeffry Houser [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 6:32 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Fusebox - opinions? Yes, but any developer worth his salt should be able to pick up a *documented* methodology and work within it given an hour or so to look over the documentation. I was on a project, where the first thing they did was have me sit down with the lead developer. He dictated everything from the directory structure of the project to the casing (I.E. upper / lower case of the letters ) to use for SQL statements. I took notes, and there was never a problem. In addition to a methodology, properly documented code should be easily picked up. At 03:05 PM 11/19/2001 -0500, you wrote: >The problem with making your own methodology up is that only the people you >have taight it to will know it, the benefit of fusebox and any other popular >methodology is that there are support forums, sample applications, and white >papers that you can work off of. > >Robert Everland III >Dixon Ticonderoga >Web Developer Extraordinaire > >-Original Message- >From: Zac Belado [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 3:06 PM >To: CF-Talk >Subject: RE: Fusebox - opinions? > > > > If you are > > looking to try and instill good disciplines and readability in your code > > Fusebox is also good for that. > >This presumes that the developers know fusebox. > >You could also get this same benefit from documenting your methods and >making sure your developers follow a single standard. > >Fusebox doesn't bring anything to development (in these terms) that any >other documented methodology would. > > ~~ 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 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
RE: Fusebox - opinions?
> You know, its all nice to have the original developer explain his > methodology but sometimes that just isn't possible. That is why you *document* things. ~~ 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 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
RE: Fusebox - opinions?
I have one more opinion. As web based applications continue to evolve out from pure Internet based applications into Enterprise Intranet and Extranet based applications calling on and interacting with Legacy systems, RECOGNIZED METHODOLOGY = CREDIBILITY. Far too many times products that are nowhere near ColdFusion in excellence are chosen instead of ColdFusion because there is still a perception among "higher-end" developers that ColdFusion is not a serious tool for Enterprise level work. Whether it be pure perception or not I really feel that ColdFusion needs a recognized identifiable methodology to survive and continue to prosper in the face of NET etc. Fusebox lends perceived credibility to ColdFusion and that cannot be bad thing whether you use Fusebox or not. Mike Brunt Sempra Energy 213.244.5226 "Prediction is hard, especially when it's about the future." -Original Message- From: Robert Everland [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 12:37 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Fusebox - opinions? You're right any developer should. Doesn't mean they will be able to. And why bother sitting at a meeting where someone dictates those things to you, you can pop on the web and learn everything you need to know. Methodology is not something you need, I used to be against fusebox because at first glance it's daunting, but once I started using it I haven't gone back. There are literally thousands of people who use fusebox, and I am sure quite a few people who use some of the others, having these little tiffs back and forth do nothing to help coding, fusebox has made a central website where you can get all the information you need to have an out of the box methodology, if you choose to make up your own and teach other people your proprietary methodology, that's fine, more power to you, but I don't have to do that. I know if I need more developers on a project I don't have to waste time teaching them from the ground up, they can learn on their own. Robert Everland III Dixon Ticonderoga Web Developer Extraordinaire -Original Message- From: Jeffry Houser [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 6:32 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Fusebox - opinions? Yes, but any developer worth his salt should be able to pick up a *documented* methodology and work within it given an hour or so to look over the documentation. I was on a project, where the first thing they did was have me sit down with the lead developer. He dictated everything from the directory structure of the project to the casing (I.E. upper / lower case of the letters ) to use for SQL statements. I took notes, and there was never a problem. In addition to a methodology, properly documented code should be easily picked up. At 03:05 PM 11/19/2001 -0500, you wrote: >The problem with making your own methodology up is that only the people you >have taight it to will know it, the benefit of fusebox and any other popular >methodology is that there are support forums, sample applications, and white >papers that you can work off of. > >Robert Everland III >Dixon Ticonderoga >Web Developer Extraordinaire > >-Original Message- >From: Zac Belado [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 3:06 PM >To: CF-Talk >Subject: RE: Fusebox - opinions? > > > > If you are > > looking to try and instill good disciplines and readability in your code > > Fusebox is also good for that. > >This presumes that the developers know fusebox. > >You could also get this same benefit from documenting your methods and >making sure your developers follow a single standard. > >Fusebox doesn't bring anything to development (in these terms) that any >other documented methodology would. > > ~~ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
Re: Fusebox - opinions?
You know, its all nice to have the original developer explain his methodology but sometimes that just isn't possible. -Craig - Original Message - From: "Bryan Stevenson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 2:37 PM Subject: Re: Fusebox - opinions? > Here Here! > > Bryan Stevenson > VP & Director of E-Commerce Development > Electric Edge Systems Group Inc. > p. 250.920.8830 > e. [EMAIL PROTECTED] > - > Allaire Alliance Partner > www.allaire.com > > - Original Message - > From: "Jeffry Houser" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 3:32 PM > Subject: RE: Fusebox - opinions? > > > > Yes, but any developer worth his salt should be able to pick up a > > *documented* methodology and work within it given an hour or so to look > > over the documentation. I was on a project, where the first thing they > did > > was have me sit down with the lead developer. He dictated everything from > > the directory structure of the project to the casing (I.E. upper / lower > > case of the letters ) to use for SQL statements. I took notes, and there > > was never a problem. > > In addition to a methodology, properly documented code should be easily > > picked up. > > > > > > At 03:05 PM 11/19/2001 -0500, you wrote: > > >The problem with making your own methodology up is that only the people > you > > >have taight it to will know it, the benefit of fusebox and any other > popular > > >methodology is that there are support forums, sample applications, and > white > > >papers that you can work off of. > > > > > >Robert Everland III > > >Dixon Ticonderoga > > >Web Developer Extraordinaire > > > > > >-Original Message- > > >From: Zac Belado [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > >Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 3:06 PM > > >To: CF-Talk > > >Subject: RE: Fusebox - opinions? > > > > > > > > > > If you are > > > > looking to try and instill good disciplines and readability in your > code > > > > Fusebox is also good for that. > > > > > >This presumes that the developers know fusebox. > > > > > >You could also get this same benefit from documenting your methods and > > >making sure your developers follow a single standard. > > > > > >Fusebox doesn't bring anything to development (in these terms) that any > > >other documented methodology would. > > > > > > > > > ~~ Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
RE: Fusebox - opinions?
You're right any developer should. Doesn't mean they will be able to. And why bother sitting at a meeting where someone dictates those things to you, you can pop on the web and learn everything you need to know. Methodology is not something you need, I used to be against fusebox because at first glance it's daunting, but once I started using it I haven't gone back. There are literally thousands of people who use fusebox, and I am sure quite a few people who use some of the others, having these little tiffs back and forth do nothing to help coding, fusebox has made a central website where you can get all the information you need to have an out of the box methodology, if you choose to make up your own and teach other people your proprietary methodology, that's fine, more power to you, but I don't have to do that. I know if I need more developers on a project I don't have to waste time teaching them from the ground up, they can learn on their own. Robert Everland III Dixon Ticonderoga Web Developer Extraordinaire -Original Message- From: Jeffry Houser [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 6:32 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Fusebox - opinions? Yes, but any developer worth his salt should be able to pick up a *documented* methodology and work within it given an hour or so to look over the documentation. I was on a project, where the first thing they did was have me sit down with the lead developer. He dictated everything from the directory structure of the project to the casing (I.E. upper / lower case of the letters ) to use for SQL statements. I took notes, and there was never a problem. In addition to a methodology, properly documented code should be easily picked up. At 03:05 PM 11/19/2001 -0500, you wrote: >The problem with making your own methodology up is that only the people you >have taight it to will know it, the benefit of fusebox and any other popular >methodology is that there are support forums, sample applications, and white >papers that you can work off of. > >Robert Everland III >Dixon Ticonderoga >Web Developer Extraordinaire > >-Original Message- >From: Zac Belado [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 3:06 PM >To: CF-Talk >Subject: RE: Fusebox - opinions? > > > > If you are > > looking to try and instill good disciplines and readability in your code > > Fusebox is also good for that. > >This presumes that the developers know fusebox. > >You could also get this same benefit from documenting your methods and >making sure your developers follow a single standard. > >Fusebox doesn't bring anything to development (in these terms) that any >other documented methodology would. > > ~~ Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
RE: Fusebox - opinions?
I use fusebox and have for some time. Once you dive in and really start understanding it you will see what all the hype is about. Fusebox 3 is even better and makes code much more reusable at an application level much more so then Fusebox 2 was. Also once you get the hang of it you can code up sites; I think, faster then doing it other ways. Your code is broken down into smaller more manageable chunks which makes trouble shooting easier and faster. The biggest thing is that it's just a methodology, if something does not fit, or you don't understand it, your not bound to using it. But using something as a standard is better then using nothing. I also recommend it to people who are brand new to CF, it seems to make the learning curve a bit easier also. Just some of my .02 on the matter... BK -Original Message- From: Gyrus [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2001 11:29 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: Fusebox - opinions? > 1.Fusebox is a coding methodology. It's like picking a certain writing > style. It trys to maximize code reuse by structuring the way you write your > code. It also lends itself to self documentation. I've seen most of the presentations on www.fusebox.org and understand what Fusebox is (otherwise I really wouldn't be considering learning it!!) - I was more after opinions about using it from people who have some depth of experience with it - pros and cons type of thing. > 2.there is a great book on fusebox called 'Fusebox: mothodology and > techniques' by steve nelson and craig girard. I know this book is around - I had just read so-so to bad reviews on Amazon.com. You say it's great - why? Any other opinions? Thanks for any feedback, - Gyrus ~~ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
Re: Fusebox - opinions?
Here Here! Bryan Stevenson VP & Director of E-Commerce Development Electric Edge Systems Group Inc. p. 250.920.8830 e. [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Allaire Alliance Partner www.allaire.com - Original Message - From: "Jeffry Houser" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 3:32 PM Subject: RE: Fusebox - opinions? > Yes, but any developer worth his salt should be able to pick up a > *documented* methodology and work within it given an hour or so to look > over the documentation. I was on a project, where the first thing they did > was have me sit down with the lead developer. He dictated everything from > the directory structure of the project to the casing (I.E. upper / lower > case of the letters ) to use for SQL statements. I took notes, and there > was never a problem. > In addition to a methodology, properly documented code should be easily > picked up. > > > At 03:05 PM 11/19/2001 -0500, you wrote: > >The problem with making your own methodology up is that only the people you > >have taight it to will know it, the benefit of fusebox and any other popular > >methodology is that there are support forums, sample applications, and white > >papers that you can work off of. > > > >Robert Everland III > >Dixon Ticonderoga > >Web Developer Extraordinaire > > > >-Original Message----- > >From: Zac Belado [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > >Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 3:06 PM > >To: CF-Talk > >Subject: RE: Fusebox - opinions? > > > > > > > If you are > > > looking to try and instill good disciplines and readability in your code > > > Fusebox is also good for that. > > > >This presumes that the developers know fusebox. > > > >You could also get this same benefit from documenting your methods and > >making sure your developers follow a single standard. > > > >Fusebox doesn't bring anything to development (in these terms) that any > >other documented methodology would. > > > > > ~~ Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
RE: Fusebox - opinions?
Yes, but any developer worth his salt should be able to pick up a *documented* methodology and work within it given an hour or so to look over the documentation. I was on a project, where the first thing they did was have me sit down with the lead developer. He dictated everything from the directory structure of the project to the casing (I.E. upper / lower case of the letters ) to use for SQL statements. I took notes, and there was never a problem. In addition to a methodology, properly documented code should be easily picked up. At 03:05 PM 11/19/2001 -0500, you wrote: >The problem with making your own methodology up is that only the people you >have taight it to will know it, the benefit of fusebox and any other popular >methodology is that there are support forums, sample applications, and white >papers that you can work off of. > >Robert Everland III >Dixon Ticonderoga >Web Developer Extraordinaire > >-Original Message- >From: Zac Belado [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 3:06 PM >To: CF-Talk >Subject: RE: Fusebox - opinions? > > > > If you are > > looking to try and instill good disciplines and readability in your code > > Fusebox is also good for that. > >This presumes that the developers know fusebox. > >You could also get this same benefit from documenting your methods and >making sure your developers follow a single standard. > >Fusebox doesn't bring anything to development (in these terms) that any >other documented methodology would. > > ~~ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
RE: Fusebox - opinions?
> Fusebox is a methodology that makes CF > development take more time. I definitely agree that the use of any given methodology needs to be appropriate to the situation. However, I've never found that Fusebox makes CF development take longer. Just the opposite in fact. I find that it speeds it up development quite a bit unless the application is extraordinarily simple and even then it's a toss-up time-wise. That does assume the developers know and understand Fusebox, of course, since it does require re-thinking your approach to some things. But one you get past all the myths floating around about it, Fusebox is pretty darn simple. Ken ~~ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
Re: Fusebox - opinions?
Oh ya..and BTW...I agree with ZacFusebox may have some good concepts, but it just doesn't work in all cases and can certainly cause unwanted complexity my 2 cents Bryan Stevenson VP & Director of E-Commerce Development Electric Edge Systems Group Inc. p. 250.920.8830 e. [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Allaire Alliance Partner www.allaire.com - Original Message - From: "Bryan Stevenson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 12:12 PM Subject: Re: Fusebox - opinions? > Go Zac! Canada! Canada! Canada! ;-) > > Hey Zac remember ServisNet :-) > > Bryan Stevenson > VP & Director of E-Commerce Development > Electric Edge Systems Group Inc. > p. 250.920.8830 > e. [EMAIL PROTECTED] > - > Allaire Alliance Partner > www.allaire.com > > - Original Message - > From: "Zac Belado" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 12:06 PM > Subject: RE: Fusebox - opinions? > > > > > If you are > > > looking to try and instill good disciplines and readability in your code > > > Fusebox is also good for that. > > > > This presumes that the developers know fusebox. > > > > You could also get this same benefit from documenting your methods and > > making sure your developers follow a single standard. > > > > Fusebox doesn't bring anything to development (in these terms) that any > > other documented methodology would. > > > ~~ Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
RE: Fusebox - opinions?
The problem with making your own methodology up is that only the people you have taight it to will know it, the benefit of fusebox and any other popular methodology is that there are support forums, sample applications, and white papers that you can work off of. Robert Everland III Dixon Ticonderoga Web Developer Extraordinaire -Original Message- From: Zac Belado [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 3:06 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Fusebox - opinions? > If you are > looking to try and instill good disciplines and readability in your code > Fusebox is also good for that. This presumes that the developers know fusebox. You could also get this same benefit from documenting your methods and making sure your developers follow a single standard. Fusebox doesn't bring anything to development (in these terms) that any other documented methodology would. ~~ Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
Re: Fusebox - opinions?
Go Zac! Canada! Canada! Canada! ;-) Hey Zac remember ServisNet :-) Bryan Stevenson VP & Director of E-Commerce Development Electric Edge Systems Group Inc. p. 250.920.8830 e. [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Allaire Alliance Partner www.allaire.com - Original Message - From: "Zac Belado" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 12:06 PM Subject: RE: Fusebox - opinions? > > If you are > > looking to try and instill good disciplines and readability in your code > > Fusebox is also good for that. > > This presumes that the developers know fusebox. > > You could also get this same benefit from documenting your methods and > making sure your developers follow a single standard. > > Fusebox doesn't bring anything to development (in these terms) that any > other documented methodology would. > ~~ Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
RE: Fusebox - opinions?
> If you are > looking to try and instill good disciplines and readability in your code > Fusebox is also good for that. This presumes that the developers know fusebox. You could also get this same benefit from documenting your methods and making sure your developers follow a single standard. Fusebox doesn't bring anything to development (in these terms) that any other documented methodology would. ~~ Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
RE: Fusebox - opinions?
Bit late in the thread but I think I do have an insight on this. I worked as an Allaire Consultant for Allaire and then Macromedia for just about 1 year. During that period I traveled all over the USA helping mainly end-users to fix broken sites. I visited some pretty big clients and had to pick up and understand their sites very quickly (typically my assignments were 3 days max in many cases). The bottom line is that if you are looking to make CF code transportable and understandable by multiple developers and coders Fusebox is a great methodology, I can attest to that. If you are looking to try and instill good disciplines and readability in your code Fusebox is also good for that. Lastly I have used CF since 1996 and two great Eureka moments occurred in the intervening years. The first was beginning to realize what ColdFusion could actually allow me to do (and I'm still learning). The second was realizing what Fusebox actually does to the structure and planning of an application. I would never go back to a non-structured way of building apps, it just does not make any sense in my opinion. Mike Brunt Sempra Energy 213.244.5226 "Prediction is hard, especially when it's about the future." -Original Message- From: Zac Belado [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 11:31 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Fusebox - opinions? > Look. Ben Forta is the guru of gurus in CF, and he didn't exactly give it > an endoresement when he came to Vancouver last week. That's enough for me > to sweep that idea under the rug. He didn't exactly slag it either, but > anyways, he can probably fill you in more than I can. As him for more > information. Ben quite explicitly said that he wasn't going to give an opinion about any methodology. Given that statement its not really fair to try to extrapolate from his comments. ~~ 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 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
RE: Fusebox - opinions?
> Look. Ben Forta is the guru of gurus in CF, and he didn't exactly give it > an endoresement when he came to Vancouver last week. That's enough for me > to sweep that idea under the rug. He didn't exactly slag it either, but > anyways, he can probably fill you in more than I can. As him for more > information. Ben quite explicitly said that he wasn't going to give an opinion about any methodology. Given that statement its not really fair to try to extrapolate from his comments. ~~ Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
RE: Fusebox - opinions?
Sure. If you like component based development, there are much better platforms to choose from though: ASP.NET and JSP have much better component based programming methodologies than fusebox does. Look. Ben Forta is the guru of gurus in CF, and he didn't exactly give it an endoresement when he came to Vancouver last week. That's enough for me to sweep that idea under the rug. He didn't exactly slag it either, but anyways, he can probably fill you in more than I can. As him for more information. The bottom line is that Fusebox is a methodology that makes CF development take more time. If you want a more time consuming process to develop sites, than I suggest ASP.NET (when it's rtm) or JSP. It is a good methdology, though. I just prefer to use the methodology appropriate to the situation, rather than use one that could potentially stonewall me at some point down the road... -Original Message- From: Joseph DeVore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2001 2:56 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Fusebox - opinions? Costas Piliotis, IMO, The Fusebox 3.0 methodology Rocks! http://fusebox.org Have you taken the time to read the spec or create any applications? Even when NEO comes out, not everyone will have the means to upgrade. No matter which route CF takes, Fusebox makes a better developer! It will change the way you plan and code your applications even if you don't decide to use the methodology. If you take the time to check it out, I'm sure you will agree! Gyrus, I would encourage you to read the new spec and forget the book and it's reviews. (The book is old and covers Fusebox 1.0) If you want to purchase something to help you with Fusebox check out the 'Conference in a Box' from Hal Helms: http://halhelms.com/ CIAO, Joseph DeVore VeloxWeb Technologies -Original Message- From: Costas Piliotis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2001 12:49 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Fusebox - opinions? Since everyone has put their two pennies in... Fusebox is a nice idea. IMHO though, Cold Fusion was never intended for structured programming in the modern, object oriented terms. New will have cf classes and stuff, so fusebox may or may not be the way to go. Here's the best thing about cold fusion: It allows developers the flexibility to design using the methodology they deem appropriate. There are no "rules" in cold fusion (other than the cf tags and functions). I'd check the specs on neo (cf6) and hold off. Fusebox is a methodology that may not bode well with the stuff in cf6. Just suggesting you be careful. -Original Message- From: Gyrus [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, November 16, 2001 6:41 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: Fusebox - opinions? OK, I think I'm on the verge of knuckling down and getting friendly with Fusebox for CF. Glancing through the PPT presentations, it seems pretty cool, and quite close to the systems I've developed anyway, only better organised :) A few questions for everyone out there who uses Fusebox: 1. Pros? Cons? Opinions? I've generally only seen good feedback, but I thought I'd see... 2. Is there any good documentation/literature? I think the PPT presentations should get me going, but I know I'll want something a little meatier. I was going to try out the book but it got so-so reader reviews on Amazon.com. Anyone think the book's worth it? Alternative deeper discussions of Fusebox anywhere? 3. I've not really used PHP or ASP. Does anyone know how the moves to have Fusebox work for these is going? Will knowing Fusebox in CF help me get going quicker with PHP/ASP if/when I delve into them (assuming Fusebox has been adapted for them)? 4. Some clients I have are still hosted with CF 4.0 - does this pose any problems for using Fusebox 3? All comments and feedback most welcome :) - Gyrus ~~ 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 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
RE: Fusebox - opinions?
> 1. Pros? Cons? Opinions? I've generally only seen good > feedback, but I thought I'd see... Its like any developmental methodology. It's value is in direct relation to the amount of work you need to do to implement it. If you already have a full or partial methodology then it might not be worth the effort. You would have to "unlearn" practices in order to learn how to do them using Fusebox. That's the primary reason why I don't use it. I was also somewhat taken aback by how, in my opinion, fusebox pages and apps tend to be more complicated than they need to be. No matter what you choose to do thought I thinks its useful to look at Fusebox (and any other methodologies) as a way to help you decide the best path to take to help create more structured code and apps. Despite the fact that I don't use, nor do I want to use, Fusebox I have taken some useful ideas from it. ~~ Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
Re: Fusebox - opinions?
> 2. Jumping back and forth between all the folders that is used to keep > track of your application. IE: _dsp, _act, _scripts, _css, _qry, > _images etc etc. If you are doing the site by yourself, this can > become tiresome. First you have to look at your index.cfm to see what > query you were using on a particular page and then go to the _qry > folder to find the file Just a note - you don't have to have your circuits set up like this. I go for the one circuit - one folder approach, with all my dsp_, qry_ and act_ files in one directory. Much easier to read. That kind of thing is entirely up to the individual. There's a lot in Fusebox that you can either take or leave depending on your requirements or individual style - that's one of the great things about it. I'm also a Fusebox convert - I picked it up a few months ago and can honestly say I would never go back. Following the methodology has changed the way I plan applications as well as how I document and code them. I think it's good to have a methodology - any methodology. Fusebox is great because it's already developed and has a strong community supporting it, but if you want to create something yourself or use another methodology I say go for it. Regards, Kay. ~~ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
RE: Fusebox - opinions?
Costas Piliotis, IMO, The Fusebox 3.0 methodology Rocks! http://fusebox.org Have you taken the time to read the spec or create any applications? Even when NEO comes out, not everyone will have the means to upgrade. No matter which route CF takes, Fusebox makes a better developer! It will change the way you plan and code your applications even if you don't decide to use the methodology. If you take the time to check it out, I'm sure you will agree! Gyrus, I would encourage you to read the new spec and forget the book and it's reviews. (The book is old and covers Fusebox 1.0) If you want to purchase something to help you with Fusebox check out the 'Conference in a Box' from Hal Helms: http://halhelms.com/ CIAO, Joseph DeVore VeloxWeb Technologies -Original Message- From: Costas Piliotis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2001 12:49 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Fusebox - opinions? Since everyone has put their two pennies in... Fusebox is a nice idea. IMHO though, Cold Fusion was never intended for structured programming in the modern, object oriented terms. New will have cf classes and stuff, so fusebox may or may not be the way to go. Here's the best thing about cold fusion: It allows developers the flexibility to design using the methodology they deem appropriate. There are no "rules" in cold fusion (other than the cf tags and functions). I'd check the specs on neo (cf6) and hold off. Fusebox is a methodology that may not bode well with the stuff in cf6. Just suggesting you be careful. -Original Message- From: Gyrus [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, November 16, 2001 6:41 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: Fusebox - opinions? OK, I think I'm on the verge of knuckling down and getting friendly with Fusebox for CF. Glancing through the PPT presentations, it seems pretty cool, and quite close to the systems I've developed anyway, only better organised :) A few questions for everyone out there who uses Fusebox: 1. Pros? Cons? Opinions? I've generally only seen good feedback, but I thought I'd see... 2. Is there any good documentation/literature? I think the PPT presentations should get me going, but I know I'll want something a little meatier. I was going to try out the book but it got so-so reader reviews on Amazon.com. Anyone think the book's worth it? Alternative deeper discussions of Fusebox anywhere? 3. I've not really used PHP or ASP. Does anyone know how the moves to have Fusebox work for these is going? Will knowing Fusebox in CF help me get going quicker with PHP/ASP if/when I delve into them (assuming Fusebox has been adapted for them)? 4. Some clients I have are still hosted with CF 4.0 - does this pose any problems for using Fusebox 3? All comments and feedback most welcome :) - Gyrus ~~ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
RE: Fusebox - opinions?
> Fusebox is a methodology that may not bode > well with the stuff in cf6. Or it may be perfectly suited to it...unless, of course, you are saying that from a position of detailed knowledge regarding both NEO and Fusebox3. Might be well to check with someone who attended the Fusebox conference in Orlando on Saturday just before the DevCon. Jeremy Allaire was the keynote speaker and may have addressed that in some regard. Ken ~~ 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 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
RE: Fusebox - opinions?
Since everyone has put their two pennies in... Fusebox is a nice idea. IMHO though, Cold Fusion was never intended for structured programming in the modern, object oriented terms. New will have cf classes and stuff, so fusebox may or may not be the way to go. Here's the best thing about cold fusion: It allows developers the flexibility to design using the methodology they deem appropriate. There are no "rules" in cold fusion (other than the cf tags and functions). I'd check the specs on neo (cf6) and hold off. Fusebox is a methodology that may not bode well with the stuff in cf6. Just suggesting you be careful. -Original Message- From: Gyrus [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, November 16, 2001 6:41 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: Fusebox - opinions? OK, I think I'm on the verge of knuckling down and getting friendly with Fusebox for CF. Glancing through the PPT presentations, it seems pretty cool, and quite close to the systems I've developed anyway, only better organised :) A few questions for everyone out there who uses Fusebox: 1. Pros? Cons? Opinions? I've generally only seen good feedback, but I thought I'd see... 2. Is there any good documentation/literature? I think the PPT presentations should get me going, but I know I'll want something a little meatier. I was going to try out the book but it got so-so reader reviews on Amazon.com. Anyone think the book's worth it? Alternative deeper discussions of Fusebox anywhere? 3. I've not really used PHP or ASP. Does anyone know how the moves to have Fusebox work for these is going? Will knowing Fusebox in CF help me get going quicker with PHP/ASP if/when I delve into them (assuming Fusebox has been adapted for them)? 4. Some clients I have are still hosted with CF 4.0 - does this pose any problems for using Fusebox 3? All comments and feedback most welcome :) - Gyrus ~~ 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 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
Re: Fusebox - opinions?
Cool toy :-) I tried to create an "egg on toast" recipe but I guess I would need to wiegh the bread and egg first :-) If you have another three months to kill maybe add some default wieghts for "a slice" or "an egg"? My wife is a diabetic so she always runs a similiar program when she whips up something new and cool.(Key Gourmet). Still, very cool app! > Oops! > > Try this URL :) : > > http://www.anzfa.gov.au/mediareleasespublications/nutritionpanelcalculator/i ndex > ~~ 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 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
RE: Fusebox - opinions?
Oops! Try this URL :) : http://www.anzfa.gov.au/mediareleasespublications/nutritionpanelcalculator/index ~~ Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
RE: Fusebox - opinions?
If I get hit by a bus tomorrow - a "good" CF developer should be able to quickly pick up my "Fusebox" project and run with it. At the same time I would be able to quickly pick up a completely different project should I have to. Fusebox is a great way to develop not only for yourself, but also for your team members or anyone else who may have to pick up where you left off. My very first ColdFusion 5 project was also my very first Fusebox 2 project (3 was still an apple in my eye a few months ago). Developing in Fusebox, together with ColdFusion's (CFML) own inherent strengths, is also a relatively more rapid and less stressful process. I developed, possibly, a world first "Nutrition Panel Calculator" for forthcoming Australian legislation, using Fusebox and ColdFusion 5 (with beta Studio 5 also - love it!). Whether converting to the masses or to a newbie - without a doubt I developed a very good "web" ready version of the NPC in less than 3 months. The Omnis alternative was 18 months in the making. ~~ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
RE: Fusebox - opinions?
Fusebox is exactly for what you are stating, bringing a style to your code. I don't think everyone should use Fusebox, because some people do have their own coding styles, but Fusebox does offer the ability to "plug" sections in with ease that also stand alone (assuming the constraints are dealt with.. i.e. variables, etc..). Fusebox documentation (FUSEDOC) is a great way to tell people reading your code, what needs to come into the page, what the page does and other information; this is why I don't understand why people say it does not provide good documentation.. What else do you want? All in all, fusebox is a great methodology that offers consistency, emphasises code reuse, and allows you to quickly develop applications because part of develping using Fusebox deals with Project Planning, an area lots of programmers do not spend enough time on. Just my two cents. Go Fusebox. Mike -Original Message- From: Gyrus [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2001 8:21 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: Fusebox - opinions? > Whoever said that FB is self > documenting must not be commenting his/her code. If this person had > just added comments to the header of each document, it would be so > much easier to track down and debug these applications. I comment my code well anyway. I disbelieved the FB claim of being 'self-documenting' from the start - seems silly. I guess a really messy coder can make a mess of something using whatever well-designed system. Thing is, the style of my app structure/naming conventions/ documentation does shift about from one project to another - mostly because I'm constantly learning in small ways. Now I feel I've enough of a grasp of CF to really start to standardise things, to give me a few less things to think about in the day-to-day coding. I could come up with my own set of conventions and my own open-ended architecture - my feeling is just, why not adopt Fusebox, to save myself a bit of time, probably learn some stuff in the process, and leave my work using something that at least some other developers out there are using too? I guess in this position it's just a matter of whether Fusebox's style meshes at all with your own enough to make it worthwhile. - Gyrus ~~ Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
Re: Fusebox - opinions?
> Whoever said that FB is self > documenting must not be commenting his/her code. If this person had just > added comments to the header of each document, it would be so much > easier to track down and debug these applications. I comment my code well anyway. I disbelieved the FB claim of being 'self-documenting' from the start - seems silly. I guess a really messy coder can make a mess of something using whatever well-designed system. Thing is, the style of my app structure/naming conventions/ documentation does shift about from one project to another - mostly because I'm constantly learning in small ways. Now I feel I've enough of a grasp of CF to really start to standardise things, to give me a few less things to think about in the day-to-day coding. I could come up with my own set of conventions and my own open-ended architecture - my feeling is just, why not adopt Fusebox, to save myself a bit of time, probably learn some stuff in the process, and leave my work using something that at least some other developers out there are using too? I guess in this position it's just a matter of whether Fusebox's style meshes at all with your own enough to make it worthwhile. - Gyrus ~~ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
RE: Fusebox - opinions?
Here here. I totally agree. I am in the process of debugging a very messy and extremely undocumented site created totally in Fusebox. Talk about a nightmare. After sifting thru a dozen includes, I finally tracked down the issue and am fixing it. Whoever said that FB is self documenting must not be commenting his/her code. If this person had just added comments to the header of each document, it would be so much easier to track down and debug these applications. But then, I guess that this goes for any application written. IMHO that is. -Original Message- From: Bryan Stevenson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2001 12:26 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: Fusebox - opinions? Hey all, Lets see I started doing Fusebox before there was a Fusebox and quickly dropped it. It seemed to produce an extremely messy control document (I guess it's always index.cfm nowadays?). About a year or 2 after it really started to spread throughout the CF community I joined a few Fusebox lists and lurked for a bit. I was shocked to find all the wasted effort writing custom tags and workarounds just to use the method!! I say if you write an application in a logical fashion and comment everything, then any other developer can work on it just as easily as you can. The bonus is you can write it faster than in Fusebox. my 2 cents...flame away ;-) Bryan Stevenson VP & Director of E-Commerce Development Electric Edge Systems Group Inc. p. 250.920.8830 e. [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Allaire Alliance Partner www.allaire.com - Original Message - From: "Douglas L. Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2001 10:22 AM Subject: Re: Fusebox - opinions? > Here is a few opinions... > > > Pros > > 1. FB is great on large scale apps, this allows several developers to have > production on a single site and allows for "specialty" type of production. > IE: the DBA can work on queries, while the CF programmer works on the front > end of things etc. > > 2. Code reuse..With the FB methodology, queries can be more like stored > procedures, where the front end and backend remain somewhat seperate from > eachother. This allows for the front end to be modified without a hitch. > > Cons > > 1. Not the greatest thing for smaller applications, unless you are an > unorganized person. You can probably code faster without it if you are > making a small app. > > 2. Jumping back and forth between all the folders that is used to keep track > of your application. IE: _dsp, _act, _scripts, _css, _qry, _images etc etc. > If you are doing the site by yourself, this can become tiresome. First you > have to look at your index.cfm to see what query you were using on a > particular page and then go to the _qry folder to find the file > > All said, I think the pros out weight the cons and would suggest it to > pretty much anyone who is developing large apps and has a team of developers > working on a site. The book(fusebox methodologies and techniques) is a so so > reader, some things are over emphasised and not really to the meat of the > matter. It is a good way to learn the basics, and it did help me to > understand what FB could do for me. The downloadable e-book is well woth the > $$, but would not suggest paying for the actual book. > > > > DB > > > > - Original Message - > From: "Gyrus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2001 8:28 AM > Subject: Re: Fusebox - opinions? > > > > > 1.Fusebox is a coding methodology. It's like picking a certain writing > > > style. It trys to maximize code reuse by structuring the way you write > > your > > > code. It also lends itself to self documentation. > > > > I've seen most of the presentations on www.fusebox.org > > and understand what Fusebox is (otherwise I really wouldn't > > be considering learning it!!) - I was more after opinions about > > using it from people who have some depth of experience > > with it - pros and cons type of thing. > > > > > 2.there is a great book on fusebox called 'Fusebox: mothodology and > > > techniques' by steve nelson and craig girard. > > > > I know this book is around - I had just read so-so to bad > > reviews on Amazon.com. You say it's great - why? Any > > other opinions? > > > > Thanks for any feedback, > > > > - Gyrus > > > > > > > ~~ 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 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
Re: Fusebox - opinions?
Gyrus, My opinion is that of only one person, and not of several. One thing to take into consideration is that the person(s) that succeed you may or may not have fusebox knowledge. I for one picked it up while it was FB2 which was a relatively easy concept to grasp. It has done a major overhaul and FB3 is a different animal to learn, if you have not done any FB in the past. I guess it would be up to the company you work for to hire the appropriate developers for the task, but they would be searching through a much smaller realm of CF developers which had FB knowledge. If it is your feeling that the the application may in fact go through some major overhauls and enlargement in the future, where they are going to need more than one developer to take care of things, I would say by all means give it a facelift in FB. If for no reason other than learning FB. The way I look at it, is that this is an opportunity to learn something that may very well increase your value as a developer, and it is good to start on a small scale. I only prefer it on larger applications like I stated above, and I can code faster without it on smaller applications, but it is every man/woman for themself and everyone has to choose what is best for them. I do not think that FB would hurt you current client!! DB - Original Message - From: "Gyrus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2001 11:24 AM Subject: Re: Fusebox - opinions? > > I am only > > interested in using it due to having more than 1 developer. I can code the > > Coldfusion and tell the DBA what queries I need and then just plug them in > > without him having his hands in my app. > > I am currently doing a lot of work (freelance) for one client, an > agency. I'm pretty much their main CF guy, and I'm thinking of > starting to use Fusebox for these reasons: > > - I've learnt a lot recently and I'm on the verge of redoing the > 'app templates' I've got, to standardise a lot of things in the way > I work. > - The stuff I'm doing is usually relatively small, and just me coding, > but I want to implement some sort of standard app structure for > future scalabililty. > - Also, there's no guarantee that I'll be with them in a year's time, > and I'd like to leave them with stuff that can be maintained/ > scaled easily by my successors. > - They're getting more and more ambitious projects coming in, > and I'd like to implement some sort of structure/standard before > the going gets crazy! > - I'm organised enough to invent my own standard structure, but > I thought, why reinvent the wheel, esp. when there's a wheel out > there that so many others are already familiar with? > > Is Fusebox overkill in this situation, even with these 'future' > considerations? > > - Gyrus > > > ~~ Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
Re: Fusebox - opinions?
> I am only > interested in using it due to having more than 1 developer. I can code the > Coldfusion and tell the DBA what queries I need and then just plug them in > without him having his hands in my app. I am currently doing a lot of work (freelance) for one client, an agency. I'm pretty much their main CF guy, and I'm thinking of starting to use Fusebox for these reasons: - I've learnt a lot recently and I'm on the verge of redoing the 'app templates' I've got, to standardise a lot of things in the way I work. - The stuff I'm doing is usually relatively small, and just me coding, but I want to implement some sort of standard app structure for future scalabililty. - Also, there's no guarantee that I'll be with them in a year's time, and I'd like to leave them with stuff that can be maintained/ scaled easily by my successors. - They're getting more and more ambitious projects coming in, and I'd like to implement some sort of structure/standard before the going gets crazy! - I'm organised enough to invent my own standard structure, but I thought, why reinvent the wheel, esp. when there's a wheel out there that so many others are already familiar with? Is Fusebox overkill in this situation, even with these 'future' considerations? - Gyrus ~~ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
Re: Fusebox - opinions?
Bryannaaa no flames here. I pretty much agree with you, I am only interested in using it due to having more than 1 developer. I can code the Coldfusion and tell the DBA what queries I need and then just plug them in without him having his hands in my app. But it can get a little sloppy from time to time.(But not on my end!!!) :-D DB - Original Message - From: "Bryan Stevenson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2001 10:25 AM Subject: Re: Fusebox - opinions? > Hey all, > > Lets see > > I started doing Fusebox before there was a Fusebox and quickly dropped it. > It seemed to produce an extremely messy control document (I guess it's > always index.cfm nowadays?). About a year or 2 after it really started to > spread throughout the CF community I joined a few Fusebox lists and lurked > for a bit. I was shocked to find all the wasted effort writing custom tags > and workarounds just to use the method!! > > I say if you write an application in a logical fashion and comment > everything, then any other developer can work on it just as easily as you > can. The bonus is you can write it faster than in Fusebox. > > my 2 cents...flame away ;-) > > Bryan Stevenson > VP & Director of E-Commerce Development > Electric Edge Systems Group Inc. > p. 250.920.8830 > e. [EMAIL PROTECTED] > - > Allaire Alliance Partner > www.allaire.com > > - Original Message - > From: "Douglas L. Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2001 10:22 AM > Subject: Re: Fusebox - opinions? > > > > Here is a few opinions... > > > > > > Pros > > > > 1. FB is great on large scale apps, this allows several developers to have > > production on a single site and allows for "specialty" type of production. > > IE: the DBA can work on queries, while the CF programmer works on the > front > > end of things etc. > > > > 2. Code reuse..With the FB methodology, queries can be more like stored > > procedures, where the front end and backend remain somewhat seperate from > > eachother. This allows for the front end to be modified without a hitch. > > > > Cons > > > > 1. Not the greatest thing for smaller applications, unless you are an > > unorganized person. You can probably code faster without it if you are > > making a small app. > > > > 2. Jumping back and forth between all the folders that is used to keep > track > > of your application. IE: _dsp, _act, _scripts, _css, _qry, _images etc > etc. > > If you are doing the site by yourself, this can become tiresome. First you > > have to look at your index.cfm to see what query you were using on a > > particular page and then go to the _qry folder to find the file > > > > All said, I think the pros out weight the cons and would suggest it to > > pretty much anyone who is developing large apps and has a team of > developers > > working on a site. The book(fusebox methodologies and techniques) is a so > so > > reader, some things are over emphasised and not really to the meat of the > > matter. It is a good way to learn the basics, and it did help me to > > understand what FB could do for me. The downloadable e-book is well woth > the > > $$, but would not suggest paying for the actual book. > > > > > > > > DB > > > > > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "Gyrus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2001 8:28 AM > > Subject: Re: Fusebox - opinions? > > > > > > > > 1.Fusebox is a coding methodology. It's like picking a certain writing > > > > style. It trys to maximize code reuse by structuring the way you write > > > your > > > > code. It also lends itself to self documentation. > > > > > > I've seen most of the presentations on www.fusebox.org > > > and understand what Fusebox is (otherwise I really wouldn't > > > be considering learning it!!) - I was more after opinions about > > > using it from people who have some depth of experience > > > with it - pros and cons type of thing. > > > > > > > 2.there is a great book on fusebox called 'Fusebox: mothodology > and > > > > techniques' by steve nelson and craig girard. > > > > > > I know this book is around - I had just read so-so to bad > > > reviews on Amazon.com. You say it's great - why? Any > > > other opinions? > > > > > > Thanks for any feedback, > > > > > > - Gyrus > > > > > > > > > > > > ~~ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
Re: Fusebox - opinions?
Hey all, Lets see I started doing Fusebox before there was a Fusebox and quickly dropped it. It seemed to produce an extremely messy control document (I guess it's always index.cfm nowadays?). About a year or 2 after it really started to spread throughout the CF community I joined a few Fusebox lists and lurked for a bit. I was shocked to find all the wasted effort writing custom tags and workarounds just to use the method!! I say if you write an application in a logical fashion and comment everything, then any other developer can work on it just as easily as you can. The bonus is you can write it faster than in Fusebox. my 2 cents...flame away ;-) Bryan Stevenson VP & Director of E-Commerce Development Electric Edge Systems Group Inc. p. 250.920.8830 e. [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Allaire Alliance Partner www.allaire.com - Original Message - From: "Douglas L. Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2001 10:22 AM Subject: Re: Fusebox - opinions? > Here is a few opinions... > > > Pros > > 1. FB is great on large scale apps, this allows several developers to have > production on a single site and allows for "specialty" type of production. > IE: the DBA can work on queries, while the CF programmer works on the front > end of things etc. > > 2. Code reuse..With the FB methodology, queries can be more like stored > procedures, where the front end and backend remain somewhat seperate from > eachother. This allows for the front end to be modified without a hitch. > > Cons > > 1. Not the greatest thing for smaller applications, unless you are an > unorganized person. You can probably code faster without it if you are > making a small app. > > 2. Jumping back and forth between all the folders that is used to keep track > of your application. IE: _dsp, _act, _scripts, _css, _qry, _images etc etc. > If you are doing the site by yourself, this can become tiresome. First you > have to look at your index.cfm to see what query you were using on a > particular page and then go to the _qry folder to find the file > > All said, I think the pros out weight the cons and would suggest it to > pretty much anyone who is developing large apps and has a team of developers > working on a site. The book(fusebox methodologies and techniques) is a so so > reader, some things are over emphasised and not really to the meat of the > matter. It is a good way to learn the basics, and it did help me to > understand what FB could do for me. The downloadable e-book is well woth the > $$, but would not suggest paying for the actual book. > > > > DB > > > > - Original Message - > From: "Gyrus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2001 8:28 AM > Subject: Re: Fusebox - opinions? > > > > > 1.Fusebox is a coding methodology. It's like picking a certain writing > > > style. It trys to maximize code reuse by structuring the way you write > > your > > > code. It also lends itself to self documentation. > > > > I've seen most of the presentations on www.fusebox.org > > and understand what Fusebox is (otherwise I really wouldn't > > be considering learning it!!) - I was more after opinions about > > using it from people who have some depth of experience > > with it - pros and cons type of thing. > > > > > 2.there is a great book on fusebox called 'Fusebox: mothodology and > > > techniques' by steve nelson and craig girard. > > > > I know this book is around - I had just read so-so to bad > > reviews on Amazon.com. You say it's great - why? Any > > other opinions? > > > > Thanks for any feedback, > > > > - Gyrus > > > > > > > ~~ Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
Re: Fusebox - opinions?
Here is a few opinions... Pros 1. FB is great on large scale apps, this allows several developers to have production on a single site and allows for "specialty" type of production. IE: the DBA can work on queries, while the CF programmer works on the front end of things etc. 2. Code reuse..With the FB methodology, queries can be more like stored procedures, where the front end and backend remain somewhat seperate from eachother. This allows for the front end to be modified without a hitch. Cons 1. Not the greatest thing for smaller applications, unless you are an unorganized person. You can probably code faster without it if you are making a small app. 2. Jumping back and forth between all the folders that is used to keep track of your application. IE: _dsp, _act, _scripts, _css, _qry, _images etc etc. If you are doing the site by yourself, this can become tiresome. First you have to look at your index.cfm to see what query you were using on a particular page and then go to the _qry folder to find the file All said, I think the pros out weight the cons and would suggest it to pretty much anyone who is developing large apps and has a team of developers working on a site. The book(fusebox methodologies and techniques) is a so so reader, some things are over emphasised and not really to the meat of the matter. It is a good way to learn the basics, and it did help me to understand what FB could do for me. The downloadable e-book is well woth the $$, but would not suggest paying for the actual book. DB - Original Message - From: "Gyrus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2001 8:28 AM Subject: Re: Fusebox - opinions? > > 1.Fusebox is a coding methodology. It's like picking a certain writing > > style. It trys to maximize code reuse by structuring the way you write > your > > code. It also lends itself to self documentation. > > I've seen most of the presentations on www.fusebox.org > and understand what Fusebox is (otherwise I really wouldn't > be considering learning it!!) - I was more after opinions about > using it from people who have some depth of experience > with it - pros and cons type of thing. > > > 2.there is a great book on fusebox called 'Fusebox: mothodology and > > techniques' by steve nelson and craig girard. > > I know this book is around - I had just read so-so to bad > reviews on Amazon.com. You say it's great - why? Any > other opinions? > > Thanks for any feedback, > > - Gyrus > > > ~~ 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 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
RE: Fusebox - opinions?
Hello. I thought I would post some thoughts for you in regards to Fusebox. I have been using Cold Fusion for almost 2 years now, and in fact in the alst year I have been heavy into it. I started using fusebox about 5 months ago and it is so awesome. It provides so much organization and flow to your applications, it is well worth the investment in time that it takes to get somfortable with it. One thing I really like is the whole idea of how you can plug in new circuits in about 2 minutes...meaning that a lot of people can work on an application from the circuit level then plug them in (this is what fusebox is all about). Mike -Original Message- From: Gyrus [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2001 11:29 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: Fusebox - opinions? > 1.Fusebox is a coding methodology. It's like picking a certain writing > style. It trys to maximize code reuse by structuring the way you write your > code. It also lends itself to self documentation. I've seen most of the presentations on www.fusebox.org and understand what Fusebox is (otherwise I really wouldn't be considering learning it!!) - I was more after opinions about using it from people who have some depth of experience with it - pros and cons type of thing. > 2.there is a great book on fusebox called 'Fusebox: mothodology > and techniques' by steve nelson and craig girard. I know this book is around - I had just read so-so to bad reviews on Amazon.com. You say it's great - why? Any other opinions? Thanks for any feedback, - Gyrus ~~ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
Re: Fusebox - opinions?
> 1.Fusebox is a coding methodology. It's like picking a certain writing > style. It trys to maximize code reuse by structuring the way you write your > code. It also lends itself to self documentation. I've seen most of the presentations on www.fusebox.org and understand what Fusebox is (otherwise I really wouldn't be considering learning it!!) - I was more after opinions about using it from people who have some depth of experience with it - pros and cons type of thing. > 2.there is a great book on fusebox called 'Fusebox: mothodology and > techniques' by steve nelson and craig girard. I know this book is around - I had just read so-so to bad reviews on Amazon.com. You say it's great - why? Any other opinions? Thanks for any feedback, - Gyrus ~~ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
RE: Fusebox - opinions?
1.Fusebox is a coding methodology. It's like picking a certain writing
style. It trys to maximize code reuse by structuring the way you write your
code. It also lends itself to self documentation.
2.there is a great book on fusebox called 'Fusebox: mothodology and
techniques' by steve nelson and craig girard.
3.the methodology learned will transfer to other languages. Of course you
will need to adjust certain aspects.
4.yes it is backwards compatible.
Take a look at http://www.fusebox.org/
Good luck,
Alexander Sicular
Chief Technology Architect
Neurological Institute of New York
Columbia University
as867 [at] columbia {dot} edu
|-Original Message-
|From: Gyrus [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
|Sent: Friday, November 16, 2001 9:41 PM
|To: CF-Talk
|Subject: Fusebox - opinions?
|
|
|OK, I think I'm on the verge of knuckling down and getting
|friendly with Fusebox for CF. Glancing through the PPT
|presentations, it seems pretty cool, and quite close to the
|systems I've developed anyway, only better organised :)
|
|A few questions for everyone out there who uses Fusebox:
|
|1. Pros? Cons? Opinions? I've generally only seen good
|feedback, but I thought I'd see...
|
|2. Is there any good documentation/literature? I think the
|PPT presentations should get me going, but I know I'll
|want something a little meatier. I was going to try out
|the book but it got so-so reader reviews on Amazon.com.
|Anyone think the book's worth it? Alternative deeper
|discussions of Fusebox anywhere?
|
|3. I've not really used PHP or ASP. Does anyone know how
|the moves to have Fusebox work for these is going? Will
|knowing Fusebox in CF help me get going quicker with
|PHP/ASP if/when I delve into them (assuming Fusebox has
|been adapted for them)?
|
|4. Some clients I have are still hosted with CF 4.0 - does this
|pose any problems for using Fusebox 3?
|
|All comments and feedback most welcome :)
|
|- Gyrus
|
|
|
~~
Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at
http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
