RE: FuseBox..
Here we go again. Take a look at Fusebox.org. -- Mark Warrick Phone: (714) 547-5386 Efax.com Fax: (801) 730-7289 Personal Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Personal URL: http://www.warrick.net Business Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Business URL: http://www.fusioneers.com ICQ: 346566 -- > -Original Message- > From: CF-Help _India [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2000 2:11 AM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: FuseBox.. > > > Hi... > > Of late i have been hearing a lot of FuseBox Could u pls tell me > is the product from allaire or ms... > > Where does the product stand when compared to cf,spectra,asp,ihtml > > where can i get material to work on it...& can i get any evaluation of > fusebox... > > Regards > Vikram > > __ > FREE voicemail, email, and fax...all in one place. > Sign Up Now! http://www.onebox.com > > -- > > Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ > To Unsubscribe visit > http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists&body=lists/cf > _talk or send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with > 'unsubscribe' in the body. -- Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ To Unsubscribe visit http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebarRsts&bodyRsts/cf_talk or send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with 'unsubscribe' in the body.
Re: FuseBox..
Vikram, I will send you an eval copy for only $500. Just send cash to Oh never mind- go to www.fusebox.org to pick up your free copy. At 02:11 AM 9/21/00 -0700, CF-Help _India wrote: >Hi... > >Of late i have been hearing a lot of FuseBox Could u pls tell me >is the product from allaire or ms... > >Where does the product stand when compared to cf,spectra,asp,ihtml > >where can i get material to work on it...& can i get any evaluation of >fusebox... > >Regards >Vikram > >__ >FREE voicemail, email, and fax...all in one place. >Sign Up Now! http://www.onebox.com > >-- >Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ >To Unsubscribe visit >http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists&body=lists/cf_talk or send a >message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with 'unsubscribe' in the body. --- Peter Theobald, Chief Technology Officer LiquidStreaming http://www.liquidstreaming.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone 1.212.545.1232 Fax 1.212.679.8032 -- Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ To Unsubscribe visit http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists&body=lists/cf_talk or send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with 'unsubscribe' in the body.
RE: FUSEBOX
www.fusebox.org Bert > -Original Message- > From: Craig A. Zingerline [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: 25 July 2000 13:02 > To: cf-talk > Subject: FUSEBOX > > > Hello, > > Can anyone tell me where to find resources on the Fusebox > methodology. Any > websites or print materials will be useful. Thank you very much in > advance... > > Cheers, > > Craig > > > Craig A. Zingerline > Advanced Media Productions > Web Application Developer > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Phone: 508.647.5151 > Fax: 508.647.5150 > > -- > > Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ > To Unsubscribe visit > http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists&body=list > s/cf_talk or send a message to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] with 'unsubscribe' in the body. > -- Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ To Unsubscribe visit http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists&body=lists/cf_talk or send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with 'unsubscribe' in the body.
RE: FUSEBOX
http://www.fusebox.org -Original Message- From: Craig A. Zingerline [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2000 8:02 AM To: cf-talk Subject: FUSEBOX Hello, Can anyone tell me where to find resources on the Fusebox methodology. Any websites or print materials will be useful. Thank you very much in advance... Cheers, Craig Craig A. Zingerline Advanced Media Productions Web Application Developer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: 508.647.5151 Fax: 508.647.5150 -- Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ To Unsubscribe visit http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists&body=lists/cf_talk or send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with 'unsubscribe' in the body. -- Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ To Unsubscribe visit http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists&body=lists/cf_talk or send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with 'unsubscribe' in the body.
Re: FUSEBOX
www.fusebox.org - Original Message - From: "Craig A. Zingerline" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "cf-talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2000 1:01 PM Subject: FUSEBOX > Hello, > > Can anyone tell me where to find resources on the Fusebox methodology. Any > websites or print materials will be useful. Thank you very much in > advance... > > Cheers, > > Craig > > > Craig A. Zingerline > Advanced Media Productions > Web Application Developer > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Phone: 508.647.5151 > Fax: 508.647.5150 > > -- > Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ > To Unsubscribe visit http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists&body=lists/cf_talk or send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with 'unsubscribe' in the body. > > -- Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ To Unsubscribe visit http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists&body=lists/cf_talk or send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with 'unsubscribe' in the body.
Re: FUSEBOX
http://www.fusebox.org/ > Can anyone tell me where to find resources on the Fusebox methodology. Any > websites or print materials will be useful. Thank you very much in > advance... -- Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ To Unsubscribe visit http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists&body=lists/cf_talk or send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with 'unsubscribe' in the body.
Re: fusebox
> Hello all, > I am looking into the FB framework and, well, I am just > getting confused. There seems to be very little > documentation on the fb website and I can really find any > resources. Where should I be looking? > Gabriel I've had the same issue -- i.e. when you download the core files for FB3, there's no explanation of how to build your fbx_circuits.cfm template. There is a forum on the FB site, although that hardly counts as documentation. It seems like they largely want you to buy the books or take their classes. Just my impression of it anyway. Granted I'm somewhat biased -- see the onTap framework in my sig below. s. isaac dealey 214-823-9345 team macromedia volunteer http://www.macromedia.com/go/team chief architect, tapestry cms http://products.turnkey.to onTap is open source http://www.turnkey.to/ontap [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
Re: fusebox
Best place to start is to sign up to the forums, and then download the core files a couple of the demo apps. If you have a problem then check the forums. If you want to buy a book then there are 2 on FB3 and one on FB4 - there are links on the fusebox.org site - but if you don't want to buy one then don't - simple. There's also an RSS feed for the forums (but I haven't got the URL to hand) so you can read it via a news reader. Cheers Bert > > -Original Message- > From: S. Isaac Dealey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 11 December 2003 07:52 > To: CF-Talk > Subject: Re: fusebox > > > > Hello all, > > > I am looking into the FB framework and, well, I am just > > getting confused. There seems to be very little > > documentation on the fb website and I can really find any > > resources. Where should I be looking? > > > Gabriel > > I've had the same issue -- i.e. when you download the core files for > FB3, there's no explanation of how to build your fbx_circuits.cfm > template. There is a forum on the FB site, although that hardly counts > as documentation. It seems like they largely want you to buy the books > or take their classes. Just my impression of it anyway. Granted I'm > somewhat biased -- see the onTap framework in my sig below. > [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
RE: fusebox
I'd also agree there seems to be a lack of documentation of FB3 and 4. I would also agree that it seems that you are expected to buy the books to get any real info - the fusebox site (other than forums) is next to useless. There is actually more useful information on http://bombusbee.com/downloads.main.htm (check out the newbie guide) than there is on the fusebox site. That said, If you are set on learning FB3 and not FB4 (which I would recommend instead) then grab a copy of discovering fusebox 3 with coldfusion. Finally as there has been plenty discussion of FB recently and its pros and cons I would strongly advise anyone evaluating a framework to actually evaluate it by using it and *not* by soliciting opinions. For every argument against using fusebox there is one for using it! HTH Kola -Original Message- From: S. Isaac Dealey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 11 December 2003 07:52 To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: fusebox > Hello all, > I am looking into the FB framework and, well, I am just > getting confused. There seems to be very little > documentation on the fb website and I can really find any > resources. Where should I be looking? > Gabriel I've had the same issue -- i.e. when you download the core files for FB3, there's no explanation of how to build your fbx_circuits.cfm template. There is a forum on the FB site, although that hardly counts as documentation. It seems like they largely want you to buy the books or take their classes. Just my impression of it anyway. Granted I'm somewhat biased -- see the onTap framework in my sig below. s. isaac dealey 214-823-9345 team macromedia volunteer http://www.macromedia.com/go/team chief architect, tapestry cms http://products.turnkey.to onTap is open source http://www.turnkey.to/ontap _ [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
RE: fusebox
If you go to the Techspedition site, there are a couple of the chapters on the xml grammar available from the FB4 book. http://www.techspedition.com If you go to my site, I have written toolbars with help documentation on the xml grammar for both homesite and dreamweaver as well as FB4 examples (mostly for layout) from a simple hello world, to a blog. http://www.shayna.com The fusebox 4 forums on Topica are still fairly active, even though there has been an effort to move to the fusebox forums. The core files and sample downloads for FB4 can be found at http://beta.fusebox.org. The xml cfx java files for the CF5 version can be found at http://xml.fusebox.org. I know the site is out of date, it hasn't been updated and needs doing, however I'm not one of the site's owners and can't do much. These are all free resources. I think Brian Kotek has stuff on his site as well. As to the books, Discovering FB3 and Discovering FB4 are musts. I like the New Riders book, but it tends to stray from FB3 and go into Flip (for that it is a great resource). Hope all this helps. Sandy Clark _ From: Kola Oyedeji [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2003 7:20 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: fusebox I'd also agree there seems to be a lack of documentation of FB3 and 4. I would also agree that it seems that you are expected to buy the books to get any real info - the fusebox site (other than forums) is next to useless. There is actually more useful information on http://bombusbee.com/downloads.main.htm (check out the newbie guide) than there is on the fusebox site. That said, If you are set on learning FB3 and not FB4 (which I would recommend instead) then grab a copy of discovering fusebox 3 with coldfusion. Finally as there has been plenty discussion of FB recently and its pros and cons I would strongly advise anyone evaluating a framework to actually evaluate it by using it and *not* by soliciting opinions. For every argument against using fusebox there is one for using it! HTH Kola -Original Message- From: S. Isaac Dealey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 11 December 2003 07:52 To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: fusebox > Hello all, > I am looking into the FB framework and, well, I am just > getting confused. There seems to be very little > documentation on the fb website and I can really find any > resources. Where should I be looking? > Gabriel I've had the same issue -- i.e. when you download the core files for FB3, there's no explanation of how to build your fbx_circuits.cfm template. There is a forum on the FB site, although that hardly counts as documentation. It seems like they largely want you to buy the books or take their classes. Just my impression of it anyway. Granted I'm somewhat biased -- see the onTap framework in my sig below. s. isaac dealey 214-823-9345 team macromedia volunteer http://www.macromedia.com/go/team chief architect, tapestry cms http://products.turnkey.to onTap is open source http://www.turnkey.to/ontap _ _ [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
RE: fusebox
Woops, one correction, the Fusebox 4 list is on Yahoo, not topica, the topica list is the regular fusebox list. [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ From: Sandy Clark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2003 8:07 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: fusebox If you go to the Techspedition site, there are a couple of the chapters on the xml grammar available from the FB4 book. http://www.techspedition.com If you go to my site, I have written toolbars with help documentation on the xml grammar for both homesite and dreamweaver as well as FB4 examples (mostly for layout) from a simple hello world, to a blog. http://www.shayna.com The fusebox 4 forums on Topica are still fairly active, even though there has been an effort to move to the fusebox forums. The core files and sample downloads for FB4 can be found at http://beta.fusebox.org. The xml cfx java files for the CF5 version can be found at http://xml.fusebox.org. I know the site is out of date, it hasn't been updated and needs doing, however I'm not one of the site's owners and can't do much. These are all free resources. I think Brian Kotek has stuff on his site as well. As to the books, Discovering FB3 and Discovering FB4 are musts. I like the New Riders book, but it tends to stray from FB3 and go into Flip (for that it is a great resource). Hope all this helps. Sandy Clark _ From: Kola Oyedeji [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2003 7:20 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: fusebox I'd also agree there seems to be a lack of documentation of FB3 and 4. I would also agree that it seems that you are expected to buy the books to get any real info - the fusebox site (other than forums) is next to useless. There is actually more useful information on http://bombusbee.com/downloads.main.htm (check out the newbie guide) than there is on the fusebox site. That said, If you are set on learning FB3 and not FB4 (which I would recommend instead) then grab a copy of discovering fusebox 3 with coldfusion. Finally as there has been plenty discussion of FB recently and its pros and cons I would strongly advise anyone evaluating a framework to actually evaluate it by using it and *not* by soliciting opinions. For every argument against using fusebox there is one for using it! HTH Kola -Original Message- From: S. Isaac Dealey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 11 December 2003 07:52 To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: fusebox > Hello all, > I am looking into the FB framework and, well, I am just > getting confused. There seems to be very little > documentation on the fb website and I can really find any > resources. Where should I be looking? > Gabriel I've had the same issue -- i.e. when you download the core files for FB3, there's no explanation of how to build your fbx_circuits.cfm template. There is a forum on the FB site, although that hardly counts as documentation. It seems like they largely want you to buy the books or take their classes. Just my impression of it anyway. Granted I'm somewhat biased -- see the onTap framework in my sig below. s. isaac dealey 214-823-9345 team macromedia volunteer http://www.macromedia.com/go/team chief architect, tapestry cms http://products.turnkey.to onTap is open source http://www.turnkey.to/ontap _ _ _ [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
RE: fusebox
Thanks to everyone who responded! Looks like I will have lots of reading to do this weekend. (The weather sucks anyway) *sigh* I really want to looking into FB before I start coding my next Project.. I have a sneaking suspition my next client is going to demand a kown methodology. Not a bad thing... just have to rework how i work! Again thanks guys! I knew i could count on you! Gabriel -Original Message- From: Sandy Clark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2003 8:29 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: fusebox Woops, one correction, the Fusebox 4 list is on Yahoo, not topica, the topica list is the regular fusebox list. [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ From: Sandy Clark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2003 8:07 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: fusebox If you go to the Techspedition site, there are a couple of the chapters on the xml grammar available from the FB4 book. http://www.techspedition.com If you go to my site, I have written toolbars with help documentation on the xml grammar for both homesite and dreamweaver as well as FB4 examples (mostly for layout) from a simple hello world, to a blog. http://www.shayna.com The fusebox 4 forums on Topica are still fairly active, even though there has been an effort to move to the fusebox forums. The core files and sample downloads for FB4 can be found at http://beta.fusebox.org. The xml cfx java files for the CF5 version can be found at http://xml.fusebox.org. I know the site is out of date, it hasn't been updated and needs doing, however I'm not one of the site's owners and can't do much. These are all free resources. I think Brian Kotek has stuff on his site as well. As to the books, Discovering FB3 and Discovering FB4 are musts. I like the New Riders book, but it tends to stray from FB3 and go into Flip (for that it is a great resource). Hope all this helps. Sandy Clark _ From: Kola Oyedeji [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2003 7:20 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: fusebox I'd also agree there seems to be a lack of documentation of FB3 and 4. I would also agree that it seems that you are expected to buy the books to get any real info - the fusebox site (other than forums) is next to useless. There is actually more useful information on http://bombusbee.com/downloads.main.htm (check out the newbie guide) than there is on the fusebox site. That said, If you are set on learning FB3 and not FB4 (which I would recommend instead) then grab a copy of discovering fusebox 3 with coldfusion. Finally as there has been plenty discussion of FB recently and its pros and cons I would strongly advise anyone evaluating a framework to actually evaluate it by using it and *not* by soliciting opinions. For every argument against using fusebox there is one for using it! HTH Kola -Original Message- From: S. Isaac Dealey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 11 December 2003 07:52 To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: fusebox > Hello all, > I am looking into the FB framework and, well, I am just > getting confused. There seems to be very little > documentation on the fb website and I can really find any > resources. Where should I be looking? > Gabriel I've had the same issue -- i.e. when you download the core files for FB3, there's no explanation of how to build your fbx_circuits.cfm template. There is a forum on the FB site, although that hardly counts as documentation. It seems like they largely want you to buy the books or take their classes. Just my impression of it anyway. Granted I'm somewhat biased -- see the onTap framework in my sig below. s. isaac dealey 214-823-9345 team macromedia volunteer http://www.macromedia.com/go/team chief architect, tapestry cms http://products.turnkey.to onTap is open sourcehttp://www.turnkey.to/ontap _ _ _ _ [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
Re: fusebox
On Thursday 11 Dec 2003 14:10 pm, Gabriel Robichaud wrote: > I have a sneaking suspition my next client is going to demand a kown > methodology. 'code and pray' ? 'hack and hope' ? 'tweak and try' ? :-) -- Tom Chiverton Advanced ColdFusion Programmer Tel: +44(0)1749 834997 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] BlueFinger Limited Underwood Business Park Wookey Hole Road, WELLS. BA5 1AF Tel: +44 (0)1749 834900 Fax: +44 (0)1749 834901 web: www.bluefinger.com Company Reg No: 4209395 Registered Office: 2 Temple Back East, Temple Quay, BRISTOL. BS1 6EG. *** This E-mail contains confidential information for the addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify us immediately. You should not use, disclose, distribute or copy this communication if received in error. No binding contract will result from this e-mail until such time as a written document is signed on behalf of the company. BlueFinger Limited cannot accept responsibility for the completeness or accuracy of this message as it has been transmitted over public networks.*** [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
RE: fusebox
> Finally as there has been plenty discussion of FB recently > and its pros > and cons I would strongly advise anyone evaluating a > framework to > actually evaluate it by using it and *not* by soliciting > opinions. For > every argument against using fusebox there is one for > using it! > HTH > Kola I absolutely agree. As a matter of fact, I second it. the up-side is that after you've built a small app or two with any given framework you should have a decent feel for whether or not it's a good match for the way you think. The downside is that doing this does require an investment of time above and beyond simple research. In my opinion it's the only way to adequately evaluate a framework. I've done a lot of work with Fusebox 3 over the past 2 years -- which is why my first article with performance comparisons focused on that and the onTap framework -- they were the 2 I already knew. I won't be publishing the following articles with similar comparisons of FB4 or Mach-II until I have more time to learn the frameworks. s. isaac dealey 214-823-9345 team macromedia volunteer http://www.macromedia.com/go/team chief architect, tapestry cms http://products.turnkey.to onTap is open source http://www.turnkey.to/ontap [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
Re: fusebox
I don't think it's that easy to get a feel for the framework. If the projects too small, you might not run into the limitations of the framework until the 3rd or 4th app. I remember when I first started with FB3 and thought that nested layouts were the best thing since sliced bread. Later, I realized the limitations. marlon S. Isaac Dealey wrote: > > Finally as there has been plenty discussion of FB recently > > and its pros > > and cons I would strongly advise anyone evaluating a > > framework to > > actually evaluate it by using it and *not* by soliciting > > opinions. For > > every argument against using fusebox there is one for > > using it! > > > HTH > > > Kola > > I absolutely agree. As a matter of fact, I second it. the up-side is > that after you've built a small app or two with any given framework > you should have a decent feel for whether or not it's a good match for > the way you think. The downside is that doing this does require an > investment of time above and beyond simple research. In my opinion > it's the only way to adequately evaluate a framework. > > I've done a lot of work with Fusebox 3 over the past 2 years -- which > is why my first article with performance comparisons focused on that > and the onTap framework -- they were the 2 I already knew. I won't be > publishing the following articles with similar comparisons of FB4 or > Mach-II until I have more time to learn the frameworks. > > s. isaac dealey 214-823-9345 > > team macromedia volunteer http://www.macromedia.com/go/team > > chief architect, tapestry cms http://products.turnkey.to > > onTap is open source http://www.turnkey.to/ontap > [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
Re: fusebox
Well it's mostly a question of time I think. My understanding is that the majority of developers / coders (whatever we want to be called) don't really use frameworks, we just pound the code into the shape we want it like the way a kid goes after play-doh. :) Ultimately becoming intimate with the pros and cons of any given method or idea takes a fair amount of time, and frameworks typically involve a good number of different methods and ideas and how they work together, so becoming intimate with the pros and cons of a framework will take a fair amount of time. I was talking about this with Sean Corfield just the other day actually and he was saying how all frameworks have a noticeable learning curve and don't seem to offer much benefit until you've got a fair amount of that learning under your belt. I think a lot of us who write code for a living either feel as though we're under too much pressure to find or make the time to learn a framework(s), and or value our recreational time too much to allow learning frameworks to take up the hours we're not being paid. Obviously I'm not speaking to or about everyone -- or anyone in particular for that matter. But it seems like this has been the case with a lot of people I've met. So frameworks I _think_ tend to end up being learned largely by the sort of osmosis and approximation that occurs when a manager or lead developer finds one he likes and simply makes a business decision to use it. Everyone else in the office learns it more or less out of necessity. So I think building a small app using a framework is significantly better than only doing the "pros and cons" research of asking other people their opinions. And especially if you're going to try out several frameworks, you're looking at a rather significant investment of time even for that. I think you are right tho -- experience is a real must. I myself was much more impressed with Fusebox 3 when I got it "out of the box" so to speak, than I was after I'd worked with it for a while. My disenchantment doesn't make it a bad framework / methodology, it's just not how I prefer to work. And my own experience with nested layouts in FB3 lead to my implementation of a different nested layout model in the onTap framework. ... ahh, a lengthy post! :) It feels good to do that again. :) > I don't think it's that easy to get a feel for the > framework. If the > projects too small, you might not run into the limitations > of the > framework until the 3rd or 4th app. I remember when I > first started > with FB3 and thought that nested layouts were the best > thing since > sliced bread. Later, I realized the limitations. > marlon > S. Isaac Dealey wrote: >> > Finally as there has been plenty discussion of FB >> > recently >> > and its pros >> > and cons I would strongly advise anyone evaluating a >> > framework to >> > actually evaluate it by using it and *not* by >> > soliciting >> > opinions. For >> > every argument against using fusebox there is one for >> > using it! >> >> > HTH >> >> > Kola >> >> I absolutely agree. As a matter of fact, I second it. the >> up-side is >> that after you've built a small app or two with any given >> framework >> you should have a decent feel for whether or not it's a >> good match for >> the way you think. The downside is that doing this does >> require an >> investment of time above and beyond simple research. In >> my opinion >> it's the only way to adequately evaluate a framework. >> >> I've done a lot of work with Fusebox 3 over the past 2 >> years -- which >> is why my first article with performance comparisons >> focused on that >> and the onTap framework -- they were the 2 I already >> knew. I won't be >> publishing the following articles with similar >> comparisons of FB4 or >> Mach-II until I have more time to learn the frameworks. >> >> s. isaac dealey 214-823-9345 >> >> team macromedia volunteer >> http://www.macromedia.com/go/team >> >> chief architect, tapestry cms http://products.turnkey.to >> >> onTap is open source >> http://www.turnkey.to/ontap >> > [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
RE: fusebox
Just to point out something. Fusebox 4 did away with the entire layout concept (nested or otherwise). It did introduce the concept of content variable which lets you buffer your display into variables and then display them into a layout file. There is a lot more flexibility to layouts in Fusebox 4. Works great with things such as web standards as well. Sandy Clark http:/www.shayna.com - For Fusebox toolsets for HS and DWMX, and lots of example code for FB4 _ From: S. Isaac Dealey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2003 1:19 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: fusebox Well it's mostly a question of time I think. My understanding is that the majority of developers / coders (whatever we want to be called) don't really use frameworks, we just pound the code into the shape we want it like the way a kid goes after play-doh. :) Ultimately becoming intimate with the pros and cons of any given method or idea takes a fair amount of time, and frameworks typically involve a good number of different methods and ideas and how they work together, so becoming intimate with the pros and cons of a framework will take a fair amount of time. I was talking about this with Sean Corfield just the other day actually and he was saying how all frameworks have a noticeable learning curve and don't seem to offer much benefit until you've got a fair amount of that learning under your belt. I think a lot of us who write code for a living either feel as though we're under too much pressure to find or make the time to learn a framework(s), and or value our recreational time too much to allow learning frameworks to take up the hours we're not being paid. Obviously I'm not speaking to or about everyone -- or anyone in particular for that matter. But it seems like this has been the case with a lot of people I've met. So frameworks I _think_ tend to end up being learned largely by the sort of osmosis and approximation that occurs when a manager or lead developer finds one he likes and simply makes a business decision to use it. Everyone else in the office learns it more or less out of necessity. So I think building a small app using a framework is significantly better than only doing the "pros and cons" research of asking other people their opinions. And especially if you're going to try out several frameworks, you're looking at a rather significant investment of time even for that. I think you are right tho -- experience is a real must. I myself was much more impressed with Fusebox 3 when I got it "out of the box" so to speak, than I was after I'd worked with it for a while. My disenchantment doesn't make it a bad framework / methodology, it's just not how I prefer to work. And my own experience with nested layouts in FB3 lead to my implementation of a different nested layout model in the onTap framework. ... ahh, a lengthy post! :) It feels good to do that again. :) > I don't think it's that easy to get a feel for the > framework. If the > projects too small, you might not run into the limitations > of the > framework until the 3rd or 4th app. I remember when I > first started > with FB3 and thought that nested layouts were the best > thing since > sliced bread. Later, I realized the limitations. > marlon > S. Isaac Dealey wrote: >> > Finally as there has been plenty discussion of FB >> > recently >> > and its pros >> > and cons I would strongly advise anyone evaluating a >> > framework to >> > actually evaluate it by using it and *not* by >> > soliciting >> > opinions. For >> > every argument against using fusebox there is one for >> > using it! >> >> > HTH >> >> > Kola >> >> I absolutely agree. As a matter of fact, I second it. the >> up-side is >> that after you've built a small app or two with any given >> framework >> you should have a decent feel for whether or not it's a >> good match for >> the way you think. The downside is that doing this does >> require an >> investment of time above and beyond simple research. In >> my opinion >> it's the only way to adequately evaluate a framework. >> >> I've done a lot of work with Fusebox 3 over the past 2 >> years -- which >> is why my first article with performance comparisons >> focused on that >> and the onTap framework -- they were the 2 I already >> knew. I won't be >> publishing the following articles with similar >> comparisons of FB4 or >> Mach-II until I have more time to learn the frameworks. >> >> s. isaac dealey 214-823-9345 >> >> team macromedia volunteer >> http://www.macromedia.com/go/team >> >> chief architect, tapestry cms http://products.turnkey.to >> >> onTap is open source >> http://www.turnkey.to/ontap >> > _ [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
RE: fusebox
Hi, I suppose the lack of documentation does tend to put people off a bit, but I don't fuss too much about buying the books. They are worth the small price and the guys that bring us Fusebox can't do everything for free... people have to eat ya know. I seem to remember everyone recommending CFWACK as "the" resource back in the day. :) The Techspedition books are pretty much the same caliber of resource for Fusebox. If you are looking for Fusebox 4 stuff here are some additional links that are very helpful: Official Fusebox 4 Site http://beta.fusebox.org Several sample applications to study (which I find the best way to learn) http://www.shayna.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=public.fusebox4examples Home Site Tag Editors, Toolbar and Help for the XML Grammar of Fusebox 4 v1.0. http://www.shayna.com/docs/HomesiteFB4.zip Dreamweaver Extension for Fusebox 4 v1.0, contains, Insertbar(Toolbar), Tag Editors, Insert Menu Items http://www.shayna.com/docs/DWMXFB4.zip Fusebox 2003 conference presentation: Layouts in Fusebox 4 http://www.shayna.com/docs/LayoutsinFusebox4.zip CFUN03 conference presentation: Accessibility and 508 with Fusebox 4 http://www.shayna.com/docs/AccessibilitywithFusebox4.ppt http://www.shayna.com/docs/fb4508.zip An Index.cfm file that automatically selects the proper core files based on the version of CF (5 or MX) http://www.shayna.com/docs/fb5fbmxindex.zip Fusebox 4 and Frames http://toshop.com/fusebox/FB4/frames/ Flash version of the Fusebox 4 overview presentation http://www.airtightweb.com/fb4/Fusebox4.swf Steve Nelson's Blog http://steve.secretagents.com/ Techspedition Books & Sample Chapters http://techspedition.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=products.listBooks Fusebox.org Forum http://www.fusebox.org/forums/ Fusebox.org Forums RSS feeds (me likes RSS) http://agincourtmedia.com/temp/fbrss/ Best regards, Michael Wilson From: Gabriel Robichaud [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2003 12:35 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: fusebox Hello all, I am looking into the FB framework and, well, I am just getting confused. There seems to be very little documentation on the fb website and I can really find any resources. Where should I be looking? [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
RE: fusebox
Sheesh, looking at all of that, I guess I am more prolific than I thought! Thanks Michael Sandy Clark Shayna.com _ From: Michael Wilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2003 3:00 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: fusebox Hi, I suppose the lack of documentation does tend to put people off a bit, but I don't fuss too much about buying the books. They are worth the small price and the guys that bring us Fusebox can't do everything for free... people have to eat ya know. I seem to remember everyone recommending CFWACK as "the" resource back in the day. :) The Techspedition books are pretty much the same caliber of resource for Fusebox. If you are looking for Fusebox 4 stuff here are some additional links that are very helpful: Official Fusebox 4 Site http://beta.fusebox.org Several sample applications to study (which I find the best way to learn) http://www.shayna.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=public.fusebox4examples Home Site Tag Editors, Toolbar and Help for the XML Grammar of Fusebox 4 v1.0. http://www.shayna.com/docs/HomesiteFB4.zip Dreamweaver Extension for Fusebox 4 v1.0, contains, Insertbar(Toolbar), Tag Editors, Insert Menu Items http://www.shayna.com/docs/DWMXFB4.zip Fusebox 2003 conference presentation: Layouts in Fusebox 4 http://www.shayna.com/docs/LayoutsinFusebox4.zip CFUN03 conference presentation: Accessibility and 508 with Fusebox 4 http://www.shayna.com/docs/AccessibilitywithFusebox4.ppt http://www.shayna.com/docs/fb4508.zip An Index.cfm file that automatically selects the proper core files based on the version of CF (5 or MX) http://www.shayna.com/docs/fb5fbmxindex.zip Fusebox 4 and Frames http://toshop.com/fusebox/FB4/frames/ Flash version of the Fusebox 4 overview presentation http://www.airtightweb.com/fb4/Fusebox4.swf Steve Nelson's Blog http://steve.secretagents.com/ Techspedition Books & Sample Chapters http://techspedition.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=products.listBooks Fusebox.org Forum http://www.fusebox.org/forums/ Fusebox.org Forums RSS feeds (me likes RSS) http://agincourtmedia.com/temp/fbrss/ Best regards, Michael Wilson From: Gabriel Robichaud [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2003 12:35 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: fusebox Hello all, I am looking into the FB framework and, well, I am just getting confused. There seems to be very little documentation on the fb website and I can really find any resources. Where should I be looking? _ [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
RE: fusebox
> Hi, > I suppose the lack of documentation does tend to put > people off a bit, but I > don't fuss too much about buying the books. They are worth > the small price > and the guys that bring us Fusebox can't do everything for > free... people > have to eat ya know. I seem to remember everyone > recommending CFWACK as > "the" resource back in the day. :) The Techspedition books > are pretty much > the same caliber of resource for Fusebox. Incidentaly, I hope my comments aren't seen as a disrespect to the guys who bring us the Fusebox framework. We all have areas where our work is either beautiful or in some way incomplete or problematic. I just feel like the documentation from fusebox.org at this point is a real weakness and that someone (who is really immaterial) should take the time to sit down and produce some basic "step 1) this is how to write an fbx_circuits.cfm" (or take it from another site that has a free tutorial) that will go in their core files download. I understand the info is likely available elsewhere for free also, i.e. techspedition, the forums, etc. but some basic info I think really needs to be "up-front" and right now that's missing from the core files. I haven't looked at FB4 yet, so I can't comment on documenation for the new version. Of course I always welcome criticism of my own documentation as well -- if you read through my blog, there've been several cases of my documentation for the onTap framework needing correction for one reason or another and I always try to get those cleared up ASAP when I find them or when someone points them out. s. isaac dealey 214-823-9345 team macromedia volunteer http://www.macromedia.com/go/team chief architect, tapestry cms http://products.turnkey.to onTap is open source http://www.turnkey.to/ontap [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
RE: fusebox
That's been a problem for a lot of frameworks - and for FuseBox since the beginning: incredibly smart guys building incredibly cool tools who have a complete, innate inability to explain anything to anyone. ;^) Jim Davis _ From: S. Isaac Dealey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2003 5:44 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: fusebox > Hi, > I suppose the lack of documentation does tend to put > people off a bit, but I > don't fuss too much about buying the books. They are worth > the small price > and the guys that bring us Fusebox can't do everything for > free... people > have to eat ya know. I seem to remember everyone > recommending CFWACK as > "the" resource back in the day. :) The Techspedition books > are pretty much > the same caliber of resource for Fusebox. Incidentaly, I hope my comments aren't seen as a disrespect to the guys who bring us the Fusebox framework. We all have areas where our work is either beautiful or in some way incomplete or problematic. I just feel like the documentation from fusebox.org at this point is a real weakness and that someone (who is really immaterial) should take the time to sit down and produce some basic "step 1) this is how to write an fbx_circuits.cfm" (or take it from another site that has a free tutorial) that will go in their core files download. I understand the info is likely available elsewhere for free also, i.e. techspedition, the forums, etc. but some basic info I think really needs to be "up-front" and right now that's missing from the core files. I haven't looked at FB4 yet, so I can't comment on documenation for the new version. Of course I always welcome criticism of my own documentation as well -- if you read through my blog, there've been several cases of my documentation for the onTap framework needing correction for one reason or another and I always try to get those cleared up ASAP when I find them or when someone points them out. s. isaac dealey 214-823-9345 team macromedia volunteer http://www.macromedia.com/go/team chief architect, tapestry cms http://products.turnkey.to onTap is open source http://www.turnkey.to/ontap _ [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
RE: fusebox
I think that books along with a free saturday morning is documentation enough what is everyone exactly looking for?! _ From: Jim Davis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2003 6:26 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: fusebox That's been a problem for a lot of frameworks - and for FuseBox since the beginning: incredibly smart guys building incredibly cool tools who have a complete, innate inability to explain anything to anyone. ;^) Jim Davis _ From: S. Isaac Dealey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2003 5:44 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: fusebox > Hi, > I suppose the lack of documentation does tend to put > people off a bit, but I > don't fuss too much about buying the books. They are worth > the small price > and the guys that bring us Fusebox can't do everything for > free... people > have to eat ya know. I seem to remember everyone > recommending CFWACK as > "the" resource back in the day. :) The Techspedition books > are pretty much > the same caliber of resource for Fusebox. Incidentaly, I hope my comments aren't seen as a disrespect to the guys who bring us the Fusebox framework. We all have areas where our work is either beautiful or in some way incomplete or problematic. I just feel like the documentation from fusebox.org at this point is a real weakness and that someone (who is really immaterial) should take the time to sit down and produce some basic "step 1) this is how to write an fbx_circuits.cfm" (or take it from another site that has a free tutorial) that will go in their core files download. I understand the info is likely available elsewhere for free also, i.e. techspedition, the forums, etc. but some basic info I think really needs to be "up-front" and right now that's missing from the core files. I haven't looked at FB4 yet, so I can't comment on documenation for the new version. Of course I always welcome criticism of my own documentation as well -- if you read through my blog, there've been several cases of my documentation for the onTap framework needing correction for one reason or another and I always try to get those cleared up ASAP when I find them or when someone points them out. s. isaac dealey 214-823-9345 team macromedia volunteer http://www.macromedia.com/go/team chief architect, tapestry cms http://products.turnkey.to onTap is open source http://www.turnkey.to/ontap _ _ [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
RE: fusebox
Heh! Documentation - who needs it - I know how this works... But if you write a really good application and include things like online help or quick tips it can negate to a degree the need for documentation. For somthing complex like the Fusebox framework documentation is indeed essential. There are some good books on the topic and sample applications to get you over the hill so to speak. That's been a problem for a lot of frameworks - and for FuseBox since the beginning: incredibly smart guys building incredibly cool tools who have a complete, innate inability to explain anything to anyone. ;^) Jim Davis _ From: S. Isaac Dealey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2003 5:44 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: fusebox > Hi, > I suppose the lack of documentation does tend to put > people off a bit, but I > don't fuss too much about buying the books. They are worth > the small price > and the guys that bring us Fusebox can't do everything for > free... people > have to eat ya know. I seem to remember everyone > recommending CFWACK as > "the" resource back in the day. :) The Techspedition books > are pretty much > the same caliber of resource for Fusebox. Incidentaly, I hope my comments aren't seen as a disrespect to the guys who bring us the Fusebox framework. We all have areas where our work is either beautiful or in some way incomplete or problematic. I just feel like the documentation from fusebox.org at this point is a real weakness and that someone (who is really immaterial) should take the time to sit down and produce some basic "step 1) this is how to write an fbx_circuits.cfm" (or take it from another site that has a free tutorial) that will go in their core files download. I understand the info is likely available elsewhere for free also, i.e. techspedition, the forums, etc. but some basic info I think really needs to be "up-front" and right now that's missing from the core files. I haven't looked at FB4 yet, so I can't comment on documenation for the new version. Of course I always welcome criticism of my own documentation as well -- if you read through my blog, there've been several cases of my documentation for the onTap framework needing correction for one reason or another and I always try to get those cleared up ASAP when I find them or when someone points them out. s. isaac dealey 214-823-9345 team macromedia volunteer http://www.macromedia.com/go/team chief architect, tapestry cms http://products.turnkey.to onTap is open source http://www.turnkey.to/ontap _ [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
RE: fusebox
Don't get me wrong - it's not just FuseBox (although that's the topic at hand). As for Fusebox; books are fine - if you're that inclined or really need to learn it. But for those with casual interest they need something right up front that explains why they should want to use it. Another reason is that the framework is free: so why should I have to buy a book to get basic information? These tools/frameworks are trying to convince people to use them: just basic marketing states that the process should be as absolutely painless as possible. Also, and this is of course, personal opinion: many of the books for technical topics (especially niche ones) are awful. Again, its people that are really good at writing code trying to write books (I shudder when I think about some of the early FuseBox documentation by Steve Nelson - who was a genius programmer). At the very least many of the smaller books just plain lack competent editing or design. Jim Davis _ From: Michael T. Tangorre [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2003 6:50 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: fusebox I think that books along with a free saturday morning is documentation enough what is everyone exactly looking for?! _ From: Jim Davis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2003 6:26 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: fusebox That's been a problem for a lot of frameworks - and for FuseBox since the beginning: incredibly smart guys building incredibly cool tools who have a complete, innate inability to explain anything to anyone. ;^) Jim Davis _ From: S. Isaac Dealey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2003 5:44 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: fusebox > Hi, > I suppose the lack of documentation does tend to put > people off a bit, but I > don't fuss too much about buying the books. They are worth > the small price > and the guys that bring us Fusebox can't do everything for > free... people > have to eat ya know. I seem to remember everyone > recommending CFWACK as > "the" resource back in the day. :) The Techspedition books > are pretty much > the same caliber of resource for Fusebox. Incidentaly, I hope my comments aren't seen as a disrespect to the guys who bring us the Fusebox framework. We all have areas where our work is either beautiful or in some way incomplete or problematic. I just feel like the documentation from fusebox.org at this point is a real weakness and that someone (who is really immaterial) should take the time to sit down and produce some basic "step 1) this is how to write an fbx_circuits.cfm" (or take it from another site that has a free tutorial) that will go in their core files download. I understand the info is likely available elsewhere for free also, i.e. techspedition, the forums, etc. but some basic info I think really needs to be "up-front" and right now that's missing from the core files. I haven't looked at FB4 yet, so I can't comment on documenation for the new version. Of course I always welcome criticism of my own documentation as well -- if you read through my blog, there've been several cases of my documentation for the onTap framework needing correction for one reason or another and I always try to get those cleared up ASAP when I find them or when someone points them out. s. isaac dealey 214-823-9345 team macromedia volunteer http://www.macromedia.com/go/team chief architect, tapestry cms http://products.turnkey.to onTap is open source http://www.turnkey.to/ontap _ _ _ [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
RE: fusebox
> These tools/frameworks are trying to convince people to > use them: just basic marketing states that the process > should be as absolutely painless as possible. Ahh yes marketing. :) It's so difficult for most of us... I think most of us view marketing as being largely as it was explained in the Hitchhiker's Guide series: "Certainly fire should burn, but I think more importantly, we need to know what color fire people want. These are the kinds of questions we should be asking? What will people be doing with it? Do people want fire that can be fitted nasally?" ... Gross exageration is always so fun. :) But yea -- I don't consider myself a master marketing person by any means -- I certainly don't consider myself a good sales person. I do what I can -- and I've been told I'm pretty good, but I can't help thinking people are stroking my ego in that department. :) s. isaac dealey 214-823-9345 team macromedia volunteer http://www.macromedia.com/go/team chief architect, tapestry cms http://products.turnkey.to onTap is open source http://www.turnkey.to/ontap [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
RE: fusebox
> I think that books along with a free saturday morning is > documentation enough what is everyone exactly looking for?! I'm actually rather surprised you don't know what I'm looking for. You must have learned from (a) book(s) originally and never sat down with a copy of the core files and tried to figure it out from scratch. If I were going to report it as a "bug" in their documentation, the steps to reproduce the issue would be: 1) download the core files for FB3 2) open the fbx_circuits.cfm template 3) realize that there are no instructions That template is required by the framework and it doesn't work "out of the box", you _must_ put something in it, but from reading through the core files, _what_ needs to go there is a mystery. I know (more or less) what needs to go in that template : at least, I can make it work from scratch. When you know what that is, it's not very complicated, and I think the instructions wouldn't take more than about 10 minutes or so to write, which is what I find surprising about it. Oddly enough, that template actually has a fusedoc in it. Unfortunately the fusedoc doesn't provide any useful information. Actually even before getting to the fbx_circuits.cfm there's nothing in the fb3 core files like a readme.txt, etc. to tell you the fbx_circuits.cfm needs to be configured, so there's a bit of research and/or trial and error to get even to that point. Again -- I mean this as no disrespect to Hal and the rest of the folks behind the framework. It's just an area of weakness, like we all have in our work. I have noticed that the folks behind Mach-II have done a good job of providing readme's which explain the core files downloads. (Though from the website it's not obvious what the difference is between the core files and the application skeleton. I personally would have included the application skeleton in a subdirectory of the core files, but that's pretty much a style decision.) Actually the doc's in the Mach-II downloads are a good comparison to see what I think is missing from the FB3 download. I certainly don't think there's a need to go to the extreme that the onTap framework is taken for documentation, wherein, large amounts of web-ready documentation have been bundled with the core files. Actually the documentation is a sample application in its own right and is designed to be extended by additional 3rd-party libraries, "plug-ins" and other components. s. isaac dealey 214-823-9345 team macromedia volunteer http://www.macromedia.com/go/team chief architect, tapestry cms http://products.turnkey.to onTap is open source http://www.turnkey.to/ontap > _____ > From: Jim Davis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2003 6:26 PM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: RE: fusebox > That's been a problem for a lot of frameworks - and for > FuseBox since the > beginning: incredibly smart guys building incredibly cool > tools who have a > complete, innate inability to explain anything to anyone. > ;^) > Jim Davis > _ > From: S. Isaac Dealey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2003 5:44 PM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: RE: fusebox >> Hi, >> I suppose the lack of documentation does tend to put >> people off a bit, but I >> don't fuss too much about buying the books. They are >> worth >> the small price >> and the guys that bring us Fusebox can't do everything >> for >> free... people >> have to eat ya know. I seem to remember everyone >> recommending CFWACK as >> "the" resource back in the day. :) The Techspedition >> books >> are pretty much >> the same caliber of resource for Fusebox. > Incidentaly, I hope my comments aren't seen as a > disrespect to the > guys who bring us the Fusebox framework. We all have areas > where our > work is either beautiful or in some way incomplete or > problematic. I > just feel like the documentation from fusebox.org at this > point is a > real weakness and that someone (who is really immaterial) > should take > the time to sit down and produce some basic "step 1) this > is how to > write an fbx_circuits.cfm" (or take it from another site > that has a > free tutorial) that will go in their core files download. > I understand > the info is likely available elsewhere for free also, i.e. > techspedition, the forums, etc. but some basic info I > think really > needs to be "up-front" and right now that's missing from > the core > files. I haven't looked at FB4 yet, so I can't comment on > documenation > for the new version. > Of course I always welcome criticism of my own > d
Re: fusebox
Yes! Fusebox rocks. It has made my code smaller, more manageable, more reuseable and easier to understand while being loose enough to let me do whatever I need to get the job done. I HIGHLY recommend fusebox to any CFDeveloper. It is based on Object Oriented Concepts that standard desktop programming environments have had for years but which web development hasn't been really able to take advantage of. The new job I am at has adopted it as company policy because of me and so did my last job. Also, fUseML is pretty useful although I am still learning it. They have a book published on Fusebox and fuseml that looks pretty good. The print version hasn't been shipped yet but if you buy it you get the .PDF version pretty quick and then the print later. go to http://www.fusebox.org -Craig Bowes Coldfusion Programmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] 972.243.1171 - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, November 03, 2000 2:53 PM Subject: fusebox > Is anyone out there using the fusebox methodology? > > I have recently started this position here and I am the Cold Fusion lead and > I was toying with the idea of recommending that we use the Fusebox method > for the complete REdeployment of our corporate Intranet. > > > any feedback is well appreciated. > > chris.alvarado > cold.fusion - developer > [phone] 512.794.6563 > [email] [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [web] http://www.tmanage.com > > > Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. It is > not for use or disclosure outside TManage without a written proprietary > agreement. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message, or agent > responsible for delivery, you may not copy or deliver this message to > anyone. Please notify the sender as soon as possible and immediately > destroy this message and its attachments entirely. > > > -- -- > Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ > Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists or send a message with 'unsubscribe' in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists or send a message with 'unsubscribe' in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: fusebox
go to house of fusion www.houseoffusion.com and sign up for the fusebox list.. its been busy lately :-) Steve - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, November 03, 2000 12:53 PM Subject: fusebox > Is anyone out there using the fusebox methodology? > > I have recently started this position here and I am the Cold Fusion lead and > I was toying with the idea of recommending that we use the Fusebox method > for the complete REdeployment of our corporate Intranet. > > > any feedback is well appreciated. > > chris.alvarado > cold.fusion - developer > [phone] 512.794.6563 > [email] [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [web] http://www.tmanage.com > > > Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. It is > not for use or disclosure outside TManage without a written proprietary > agreement. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message, or agent > responsible for delivery, you may not copy or deliver this message to > anyone. Please notify the sender as soon as possible and immediately > destroy this message and its attachments entirely. > > > -- -- > Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ > Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists or send a message with 'unsubscribe' in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists or send a message with 'unsubscribe' in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: fusebox
www.fusebox.org There are many of us. Mark Johnson --- Senior Cold Fusion Developer Cardinal Communications -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, November 03, 2000 8:53 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: fusebox Is anyone out there using the fusebox methodology? I have recently started this position here and I am the Cold Fusion lead and I was toying with the idea of recommending that we use the Fusebox method for the complete REdeployment of our corporate Intranet. any feedback is well appreciated. chris.alvarado cold.fusion - developer [phone] 512.794.6563 [email] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [web] http://www.tmanage.com Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. It is not for use or disclosure outside TManage without a written proprietary agreement. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message, or agent responsible for delivery, you may not copy or deliver this message to anyone. Please notify the sender as soon as possible and immediately destroy this message and its attachments entirely. Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists or send a message with 'unsubscribe' in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists or send a message with 'unsubscribe' in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: fusebox
Fusebox is great at streamlining your production time (especically with several developers). I have been using the methodology for everything I do except for smaller applications. I recommend joining the listserv [EMAIL PROTECTED] for general questions and info about new developments. You can also go to Fusebox.org and SecretAgents.com for more information. Shane Witbeck Webmaster / ColdFusion Developer -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, November 03, 2000 3:53 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: fusebox Is anyone out there using the fusebox methodology? I have recently started this position here and I am the Cold Fusion lead and I was toying with the idea of recommending that we use the Fusebox method for the complete REdeployment of our corporate Intranet. any feedback is well appreciated. chris.alvarado cold.fusion - developer [phone] 512.794.6563 [email] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [web] http://www.tmanage.com Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. It is not for use or disclosure outside TManage without a written proprietary agreement. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message, or agent responsible for delivery, you may not copy or deliver this message to anyone. Please notify the sender as soon as possible and immediately destroy this message and its attachments entirely. Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists or send a message with 'unsubscribe' in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists or send a message with 'unsubscribe' in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: fusebox
This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. --_=_NextPart_001_01C045F5.BCFBC5A0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Any method you can use for coding would help you a great deal when doing any type of job. We use FuseBox and since we started using it its been great easier to fit in add-ons and easier to debug any unforeseen bugs in the coding. But like I said any method of coding for any language helps a lot. You just might find you hate FuseBox and want to find something else or start your own. Another method out there for Cold Fusion is cfobjects at http://www.cfobjects.com Shawn Regan [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cold Fusion Developer Pacific Technology Solutions --_=_NextPart_001_01C045F5.BCFBC5A0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: fusebox Any method you can use for coding would help you a = great deal when doing any type of job. We use FuseBox and since we = started using it its been great easier to fit in add-ons and easier to = debug any unforeseen bugs in the coding. But like I said any method of = coding for any language helps a lot. You just might find you hate = FuseBox and want to find something else or start your own. Another = method out there for Cold Fusion is cfobjects at http://www.cfobjects.com" = TARGET=3D"_blank">http://www.cfobjects.com Shawn Regan [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cold Fusion Developer Pacific Technology Solutions --_=_NextPart_001_01C045F5.BCFBC5A0-- Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists or send a message with 'unsubscribe' in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: fusebox
I use it regularly and have been for the past year and a half. ---mark -- Mark Warrick Phone: (714) 547-5386 Efax.com Fax: (801) 730-7289 Personal Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Personal URL: http://www.warrick.net Business Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Business URL: http://www.fusioneers.com ICQ: 346566 -- > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, November 03, 2000 12:53 PM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: fusebox > > > Is anyone out there using the fusebox methodology? > > I have recently started this position here and I am the Cold > Fusion lead and > I was toying with the idea of recommending that we use the Fusebox method > for the complete REdeployment of our corporate Intranet. > > > any feedback is well appreciated. > > chris.alvarado > cold.fusion - developer > [phone] 512.794.6563 > [email] [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [web] http://www.tmanage.com > > > Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this > message. It is > not for use or disclosure outside TManage without a written proprietary > agreement. If you are not the addressee indicated in this > message, or agent > responsible for delivery, you may not copy or deliver this message to > anyone. Please notify the sender as soon as possible and immediately > destroy this message and its attachments entirely. > > > -- > -- > Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ > Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists > or send a message with 'unsubscribe' in the body to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebarRsts or send a message with 'unsubscribe' in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: fusebox
Chris, There are a lot of us out there using Fusebox and more everyday. I can only say good things about it. It's great for taking a great product like ColdFusion and making the way that we code it better. There is a small learning curve, but once you get the hang of it, you can really turn out some great stuff in a hurry. Just my two cents on the issue. Bill > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, November 03, 2000 3:53 PM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: fusebox > > > Is anyone out there using the fusebox methodology? > > I have recently started this position here and I am the Cold > Fusion lead and > I was toying with the idea of recommending that we use the Fusebox method > for the complete REdeployment of our corporate Intranet. > > > any feedback is well appreciated. > > chris.alvarado > cold.fusion - developer > [phone] 512.794.6563 > [email] [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [web] http://www.tmanage.com > > > Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this > message. It is > not for use or disclosure outside TManage without a written proprietary > agreement. If you are not the addressee indicated in this > message, or agent > responsible for delivery, you may not copy or deliver this message to > anyone. Please notify the sender as soon as possible and immediately > destroy this message and its attachments entirely. > > > -- > -- > Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ > Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists > or send a message with 'unsubscribe' in the body to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists or send a message with 'unsubscribe' in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: fusebox
I have used the Fusebox development methodology for several projects, as have most of the developers I work with. We all dislike it. It slightly increases development time, obfuscates CF debugging, and necessitates superfluous code and processing time by routing every page call through an index.cfm. We now only use it when clients insist that they want their applications built around it (usually they've heard a little about Fusebox and think it's cutting-edge so they want it without really understanding it). A well-designed and well-written application does not need to be redone in Fusebox to make it better. However, a poorly-designed or poorly-written application may benefit from Fusebox because then it will be somewhat easier for later programmers to come in and fix it. I would only recommend that a new application be written Fusebox-style if it is going to be very large and complex, there will be a lot of developers working on the application, and if many of those developers are ColdFusion beginners (and then only if you ignore the terrible filenaming conventions). That's because Fusebox does have some value in making the page-flow logic easier to follow for people who are not familiar with all of the application, or who are CF beginners. That's its only significant advantage. Otherwise you can avoid some unnecessary development time (and later CPU overhead) and focus on programming the application's logic flow according to your business needs rather than shoehorning it into the somewhat arbitrary Fusebox development methodology. If you're really having trouble deciding whether to use Fusebox or not, it may be helpful if you ask yourself what's more important in your situation: adopting the latest fads in CF development methodologies, or optimizing your application? Regards, Karl Simanonok, staff consultant Advanta Solutions, Inc. Original message: === Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 17:35:26 -0600 From: "Craig Bowes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: fusebox Message-ID: <005801c045ee$becf3f00$[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Yes! Fusebox rocks. It has made my code smaller, more manageable, more reuseable and easier to understand while being loose enough to let me do whatever I need to get the job done. I HIGHLY recommend fusebox to any CFDeveloper. It is based on Object Oriented Concepts that standard desktop programming environments have had for years but which web development hasn't been really able to take advantage of. The new job I am at has adopted it as company policy because of me and so did my last job. Also, fUseML is pretty useful although I am still learning it. They have a book published on Fusebox and fuseml that looks pretty good. The print version hasn't been shipped yet but if you buy it you get the .PDF version pretty quick and then the print later. go to http://www.fusebox.org -Craig Bowes Coldfusion Programmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] 972.243.1171 - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, November 03, 2000 2:53 PM Subject: fusebox > Is anyone out there using the fusebox methodology? > > I have recently started this position here and I am the Cold Fusion lead and > I was toying with the idea of recommending that we use the Fusebox method > for the complete REdeployment of our corporate Intranet. > > > any feedback is well appreciated. > > chris.alvarado > cold.fusion - developer > [phone] 512.794.6563 > [email] [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [web] http://www.tmanage.com > Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists or send a message with 'unsubscribe' in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: fusebox
Wow what system are you using? Our Sites have over 1000 CFM files that do the balance of the application. Thats just one of our services, the others are getting there too. And i can tell you that we have a *unnoticeable* increase in load on the box or even lag on member boxes with people who still have 28.8K connections. And as for calling Fusebox a fad i think you are just being silly, i mean whats a fad..a fad was people who used to walk around with bright PINK fanny packs, now thats a fad, why is FUSEBOX not a fad? Well i'm glad you asked, Fusebox is not a fad because what it is, is a Development Methodology that was developed to help RAD (Rapid Application Development) which it does by making everything uniform to where you will always know where to look for things, and it even helps when you still use uniform naming conventions. > > We now only use it when clients insist that > > they want their applications built around it (usually they've heard a > > little about Fusebox and think it's cutting-edge so they want it without > > really understanding it). I think that client want that because they are smart and forward thinking because they want there application to be able to be maintained by another developer much more easily then with other styles of coding. However, a poorly-designed or > poorly-written application may benefit from Fusebox because then it will > be somewhat easier for later programmers to come in and fix it. I would > only recommend that a new application be written Fusebox-style if it is > going to be very large and complex, there will be a lot of developers > working on the application, and if many of those developers are > ColdFusion beginners (and then only if you ignore the terrible > filenaming conventions). And again i have seen many companies who use FUSEBOX and are large, as well as our own which is large and we use standard naming conventions and we still find it a good idea to use the methology. But its nice to see you saying that people who use Fusebox will be writting poor code and applications in essence. >That's because Fusebox does have some value in > making the page-flow logic easier to follow for people who are not > familiar with all of the application, or who are CF beginners. That's > its only significant advantage. I would highly disagree with the fact you say Fusebox is only for CF Beginners, if you want i can give you the url fusebox.org and you can go read through its pros and cons and then come back and we'll compare with your list here =). You'll find alot more Pros then cons. Next time sit and think before you start talking about things that you are apparently not very well versed in Bill Wheatley Director of Development Allaire Certified ColdFusion Developer AEPS INC Allaire ColdFusion Consulting Partner www.aeps.com www.aeps2000.com 954-472-6684 X303 ICQ: 417645 > > Original message: > > ===Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 17:35:26 -0600 > > From: "Craig Bowes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Subject: Re: fusebox > > Message-ID: <005801c045ee$becf3f00$[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > Yes! Fusebox rocks. It has made my code smaller, more manageable, more > > > > reuseable and easier to understand while being loose enough to let me do > > > > whatever I need to get the job done. I HIGHLY recommend fusebox to any > > CFDeveloper. It is based on Object Oriented Concepts that standard > > desktop > > programming environments have had for years but which web development > > hasn't > > been really able to take advantage of. > > > > The new job I am at has adopted it as company policy because of me and > > so > > did my last job. Also, fUseML is pretty useful although I am still > > learning > > it. They have a book published on Fusebox and fuseml that looks pretty > > good. The print version hasn't been shipped yet but if you buy it you > > get > > the .PDF version pretty quick and then the print later. > > > > go to http://www.fusebox.org > > > > -Craig Bowes > > Coldfusion Programmer > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > 972.243.1171 > > > > > > - Original Message -From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Friday, November 03, 2000 2:53 PM > > Subject: fusebox > > > > > > > Is anyone out there using the fusebox methodology? > > > > > > I have recently started this position here and I am the Cold Fusion > > lead > > and > > > I was toying with the idea of recommending that we use the Fusebox > > method >
Re: fusebox
Like I said: we've used Fusebox (you found proof), and having done so, discovered that any benefits it may have are marginal at best. That doesn't mean we're going to rewrite everything we've done in it! I've still got old Perl code running from before CF was born (and somebody might even ask me to write some more someday), but it doesn't mean I'm a Perl fan of any kind. I forgot to acknowledge another Fusebox 'benefit' yesterday: since it increases development time, you get to pad your clients' bills by using it. ;) Regards, Karl S. Original Message: Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 18:54:12 -0800 From: "Stephen M Aylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: fusebox / Cross Posted for annoyance Message-ID: <01d201c04866$0317a840$0e01a8c0@iindev> huhm ... kinda weird that your site is fusebox - dontcha think? Steve Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists or send a message with 'unsubscribe' in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: fusebox
This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. --_=_NextPart_001_01C04907.19F047B0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" I work for a large cf consulting shop. I have seen and worked with quite a few cf apps. The shops that use fusebox are a better environment. The developers are happy, have smiles on their faces and enjoy their jobs. In the other shops, the developers are frustrated, have bloodshot eyes and lash out at the slightest things. Im sure that is probably just because the fusebox shops are full of beginners though. They dont have the knowledge to even know that: "It slightly increases development time, obfuscates CF debugging, and necessitates superfluous code and processing time by routing every page call through an index.cfm." Yeah right...Fusebox is a proven methodology that works well. If it makes things more difficult, your not using it right. John -Original Message- From: William J Wheatley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2000 8:50 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: fusebox Wow what system are you using? Our Sites have over 1000 CFM files that do the balance of the application. Thats just one of our services, the others are getting there too. And i can tell you that we have a *unnoticeable* increase in load on the box or even lag on member boxes with people who still have 28.8K connections. And as for calling Fusebox a fad i think you are just being silly, i mean whats a fad..a fad was people who used to walk around with bright PINK fanny packs, now thats a fad, why is FUSEBOX not a fad? Well i'm glad you asked, Fusebox is not a fad because what it is, is a Development Methodology that was developed to help RAD (Rapid Application Development) which it does by making everything uniform to where you will always know where to look for things, and it even helps when you still use uniform naming conventions. > > We now only use it when clients insist that > > they want their applications built around it (usually they've heard a > > little about Fusebox and think it's cutting-edge so they want it without > > really understanding it). I think that client want that because they are smart and forward thinking because they want there application to be able to be maintained by another developer much more easily then with other styles of coding. However, a poorly-designed or > poorly-written application may benefit from Fusebox because then it will > be somewhat easier for later programmers to come in and fix it. I would > only recommend that a new application be written Fusebox-style if it is > going to be very large and complex, there will be a lot of developers > working on the application, and if many of those developers are > ColdFusion beginners (and then only if you ignore the terrible > filenaming conventions). And again i have seen many companies who use FUSEBOX and are large, as well as our own which is large and we use standard naming conventions and we still find it a good idea to use the methology. But its nice to see you saying that people who use Fusebox will be writting poor code and applications in essence. >That's because Fusebox does have some value in > making the page-flow logic easier to follow for people who are not > familiar with all of the application, or who are CF beginners. That's > its only significant advantage. I would highly disagree with the fact you say Fusebox is only for CF Beginners, if you want i can give you the url fusebox.org and you can go read through its pros and cons and then come back and we'll compare with your list here =). You'll find alot more Pros then cons. Next time sit and think before you start talking about things that you are apparently not very well versed in Bill Wheatley Director of Development Allaire Certified ColdFusion Developer AEPS INC Allaire ColdFusion Consulting Partner www.aeps.com www.aeps2000.com 954-472-6684 X303 ICQ: 417645 > > Original message: > > ===Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 17:35:26 -0600 > > From: "Craig Bowes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Subject: Re: fusebox > > Message-ID: <005801c045ee$becf3f00$[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > Yes! Fusebox rocks. It has made my code smaller, more manageable, more > > > > reuseable and easier to understand while being loose enough to let me do > > > > whatever I need to get the job done. I HIGHLY recommend fusebox to any > > CFDeveloper. It is based on Object Oriented Concepts that standard > > desktop > > programming environments have had for years but which web development > > hasn't > > been really able to t
Re: fusebox
now that is also very funny, i have found it to be faster to write fusebox but i guess that just sets apart the type of developers we are. Lol but this has given me a great laugh, it just seems like you woke up on the wrong side of the bed or you have a grudge with fusebox lol. REMEMBER TO VOTE!!! Bill Wheatley Director of Development AEPS INC Allaire ColdFusion Consulting Partner Allaire Certified ColdFusion Developer http://www.aeps.com ICQ: 417645 http://www.aeps2000.com 954-472-6684 X303 - Original Message - From: "Karl Simanonok" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2000 1:21 PM Subject: Re: fusebox > Like I said: we've used Fusebox (you found proof), and having done so, > discovered that any benefits it may have are marginal at best. That > doesn't mean we're going to rewrite everything we've done in it! I've > still got old Perl code running from before CF was born (and somebody > might even ask me to write some more someday), but it doesn't mean I'm a > Perl fan of any kind. > > I forgot to acknowledge another Fusebox 'benefit' yesterday: since it > increases development time, you get to pad your clients' bills by using > it. ;) > > Regards, > > Karl S. > > Original Message: > > Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 18:54:12 -0800 > From: "Stephen M Aylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: fusebox / Cross Posted for annoyance > Message-ID: <01d201c04866$0317a840$0e01a8c0@iindev> > > huhm ... kinda weird that your site is fusebox - dontcha think? > > Steve > > -- -- > Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ > Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists or send a message with 'unsubscribe' in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists or send a message with 'unsubscribe' in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: fusebox
Karl, Certainly FB coding methods are NOT obligatory - nor for everyone - thats for sure. You opinions are as well valued. No problems there. I just find your perspective quite interesting - as it seems so... contrary to sooo many other folks. Maybe no one else other than you and Dave Watts has the "loinal fortitude" to stand up and say so - tho Im sure there are many others. Its rather contrary also to quite a few peeps on these lists that - well frankly - are not at all CF Beginners (I am a beginner - and I found FB was quite helpful - but thats neither here nor there) Maybe, . not to try and start a whole new "ADVANTA" methodology or anything like that ... but maybe - since you guys find Fusebox to suck monkey ass so bad, you could discuss some of the code | design methodologies you and your team decided on that kicked FB's arse - up down and sideways. Surely the community could benefit a great deal from a methodology thats so far superior? At least Dave Watts provides constructive criticism that discusses real life examples where their situations arent conducive to FB style (though there is also some debate on this as well - sorta) In any event - most of the anti - FB arguments have held much water - as it were "Good Codes works fine all by itself and no need for FB doesnt really get it. So what were your alternatives?? What werkz better? How would you improve the file naming conventions? What would you keep? Please tell me it sucks for a better reason the the file naming!!!? Also... I dont recall there being a giant plea/demand/cry - to run out and re-write everything one does or did in FB? and FAD? Javascript animations ... now theres a FAD. Stephen M. Aylor iiinsurex > - Original Message - > From: "Karl Simanonok" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: fusebox > > > > Like I said: we've used Fusebox (you found proof), and having done so, > > discovered that any benefits it may have are marginal at best. That > > doesn't mean we're going to rewrite everything we've done in it! I've > > still got old Perl code running from before CF was born (and somebody > > might even ask me to write some more someday), but it doesn't mean I'm a > > Perl fan of any kind. > > > > I forgot to acknowledge another Fusebox 'benefit' yesterday: since it > > increases development time, you get to pad your clients' bills by using > > it. ;) > > > > Regards, > > > > Karl S. Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists or send a message with 'unsubscribe' in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: fusebox
Hi all, I use FuseBox development for a huge government organization. I love it to death, but the idea is to take from it what works for you. For me, the most useful thing about FuseBox is the standardized break-up of CF code into separate small files, with naming conventions to take away guess-work. This eases the task of separating logic from presentation, facilitates multi-person development, and makes code re-use (at least within a single application) much more natural. There are other FuseBox-y things that I DO NOT do, like having separate URL_ files for handling redirections. That just seems like a lot of work for only an ideological gain. As for server overhead, I believe that extra CPU grunt, and extra RAM is a whole lot cheaper than developer time, so I try to optimize code and methodolgy for ease of development and maintenance, before execution efficiency. Otherwise I'd be buried in assembler. FuseBox, in my experience, definitely makes life easier for developer and maintainer. There's a slight learning curve, but once you understand what's going on, life suddenly becomes much easier, and those apps just get stamped out of the cookie-cutter. My advice for those who wish to explore FuseBox (which has application MUCH wider than just CF) is to join the FuseBox mailing list (go to houseoffusion.com), to read the powerPoint presentations on FuseBox.org, to download the code for the FuseBox.org site and pull it apart, and to grab the excellent FuseBox book from secretagents.com and elsewhere. As for the person who said "if it doesn't make things easier, then you're not doing it right", I think we can live without those kinds of Emperor's New Clothes comments. I'm sure that some people already have their own fabulous methodologies worked out, which may be even better than FuseBox. If that's right, then I hope they will let us all in on it. One thing you can say for Steve Nelson and the other FuseBox pioneers is that they have helped a lot of CF developers do their jobs a whole lot better. God bless us all, Lee (Bjork) Borkman http://bjork.net ColdFusion Tags by Bjork IMPORTANT NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachment to it is intended only to be read or used by the named addressee. It is confidential and may contain legally privileged information. No confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by any mistaken transmission to you. If you receive this e-mail in error, please immediately delete it from your system and notify the sender. You must not disclose, copy or use any part of this e-mail if you are not the intended recipient. The RTA is not responsible for any unauthorised alterations to this e-mail or attachment to it. Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists or send a message with 'unsubscribe' in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: fusebox
here here! Bill Wheatley Director of Development AEPS INC Allaire ColdFusion Consulting Partner Allaire Certified ColdFusion Developer http://www.aeps.com ICQ: 417645 http://www.aeps2000.com 954-472-6684 X303 - Original Message - From: "Stephen M Aylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2000 10:49 PM Subject: Re: fusebox > Karl, > > Certainly FB coding methods are NOT obligatory - nor for everyone - thats > for sure. You opinions are as well valued. No problems there. I just find > your perspective quite interesting - as it seems so... contrary to sooo many > other folks. Maybe no one else other than you and Dave Watts has the > "loinal fortitude" to stand up and say so - tho Im sure there are many > others. > > Its rather contrary also to quite a few peeps on these lists that - well > frankly - are not at all CF Beginners (I am a beginner - and I found FB was > quite helpful - but thats neither here nor there) > > Maybe, . not to try and start a whole new "ADVANTA" methodology or > anything like that ... but maybe - since you guys find Fusebox to suck > monkey ass so bad, you could discuss some of the code | design methodologies > you and your team decided on that kicked FB's arse - up down and sideways. > Surely the community could benefit a great deal from a methodology thats so > far superior? > > At least Dave Watts provides constructive criticism that discusses real life > examples where their situations arent conducive to FB style (though there is > also some debate on this as well - sorta) In any event - most of the anti - > FB arguments have held much water - as it were "Good Codes works fine all > by itself and no need for FB doesnt really get it. > > So what were your alternatives?? > > What werkz better? > > How would you improve the file naming conventions? > > What would you keep? > > Please tell me it sucks for a better reason the the file naming!!!? Also... > I dont recall there being a giant plea/demand/cry - to run out and re-write > everything one does or did in FB? and FAD? Javascript animations ... > now theres a FAD. > > Stephen M. Aylor > iiinsurex > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "Karl Simanonok" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Subject: Re: fusebox > > > > > > > Like I said: we've used Fusebox (you found proof), and having done so, > > > discovered that any benefits it may have are marginal at best. That > > > doesn't mean we're going to rewrite everything we've done in it! I've > > > still got old Perl code running from before CF was born (and somebody > > > might even ask me to write some more someday), but it doesn't mean I'm a > > > Perl fan of any kind. > > > > > > I forgot to acknowledge another Fusebox 'benefit' yesterday: since it > > > increases development time, you get to pad your clients' bills by using > > > it. ;) > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > Karl S. > > > -- -- > Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ > Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists or send a message with 'unsubscribe' in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists or send a message with 'unsubscribe' in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: fusebox
From: "Stephen M Aylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Certainly FB coding methods are NOT obligatory - nor for everyone - thats > for sure. You opinions are as well valued. No problems there. I just find > your perspective quite interesting - as it seems so... contrary to sooo many > other folks. Maybe no one else other than you and Dave Watts has the > "loinal fortitude" to stand up and say so - tho Im sure there are many > others. > Too busy writing non-fusebox apps to discuss much. It isn't an issue that seems all that necessary to consider. Never got a job because of fusebox, never lost one because of fusebox. It's just like the certification issue - no impact within my intellectual horizon - so discussion of same just doesn't consume much of my time or thinking. What would attract my attention is if there was any *reproducible* statististics that provided non-anectdotal evidence that fusebox can be faster, more efficient than some other methodology. Maybe some people would have the time to construct a scenario that works towards providing good data ... (Maybe the data already exists ???) Something like -- post a spec that is made available at a specified time and then collect various solutions. Then look at total work time, workflow, closeness to specs, operational efficiency and any number of other factors. Were anyone to do such a study I would give it a close read. If I found enough convincing 'stuff' that lead to adopting fusebox as a standard best practice, then I'd adopt it without any hesitation. Until then I have work to do and not the time to rigorously examine fusebox. Does the new fusebox book have anything like the above in it? Pan - "why didn't I post this to cf_community?" Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists or send a message with 'unsubscribe' in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: fusebox
Si ... pretty cool that they shared, spent their own time, energy and to help many peeps. Which is more than I can say for a few ... uuuhh hem.. naysayers :-) Steve > One thing you > can say for Steve Nelson and the other FuseBox pioneers is that they have > helped a lot of CF developers do their jobs a whole lot better. > > God bless us all, > Lee (Bjork) Borkman > http://bjork.net ColdFusion Tags by Bjork > Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists or send a message with 'unsubscribe' in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: fusebox
Just out of curiousity, do you use any kind of methodology for you CF applications? Most people that have really used fusebox seemed to like it and CFObjects sounds interesting also. How do you get away from having a million cfincludes w/in cfincludes or knowing which files do what? What is wrong with the naming conventions? VB has the same thing, really. I do have concerns about the increased processing time but I've never seen a huge increase in my applications. I try to break down each part of the app in separate folders so its index file isn't really that monolithic. Most of the apps I do are fairly complex so having things fit a system seems to work for me. -Craig Bowes Coldfusion Programmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] 972.243.1171 - Original Message - From: "Karl Simanonok" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, November 06, 2000 3:47 PM Subject: Re: fusebox > I have used the Fusebox development methodology for several projects, as > have most of the developers I work with. We all dislike it. It > slightly increases development time, obfuscates CF debugging, and > necessitates superfluous code and processing time by routing every page > call through an index.cfm. We now only use it when clients insist that > they want their applications built around it (usually they've heard a > little about Fusebox and think it's cutting-edge so they want it without > really understanding it). > > A well-designed and well-written application does not need to be redone > in Fusebox to make it better. However, a poorly-designed or > poorly-written application may benefit from Fusebox because then it will > be somewhat easier for later programmers to come in and fix it. I would > only recommend that a new application be written Fusebox-style if it is > going to be very large and complex, there will be a lot of developers > working on the application, and if many of those developers are > ColdFusion beginners (and then only if you ignore the terrible > filenaming conventions). That's because Fusebox does have some value in > making the page-flow logic easier to follow for people who are not > familiar with all of the application, or who are CF beginners. That's > its only significant advantage. Otherwise you can avoid some unnecessary > development time (and later CPU overhead) and focus on programming the > application's logic flow according to your business needs rather than > shoehorning it into the somewhat arbitrary Fusebox development > methodology. > > If you're really having trouble deciding whether to use Fusebox or not, > it may be helpful if you ask yourself what's more important in your > situation: adopting the latest fads in CF development methodologies, or > optimizing your application? > > Regards, > > Karl Simanonok, staff consultant > Advanta Solutions, Inc. > > Original message: > === > Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 17:35:26 -0600 > From: "Craig Bowes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: fusebox > Message-ID: <005801c045ee$becf3f00$[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Yes! Fusebox rocks. It has made my code smaller, more manageable, more > > reuseable and easier to understand while being loose enough to let me do > > whatever I need to get the job done. I HIGHLY recommend fusebox to any > CFDeveloper. It is based on Object Oriented Concepts that standard > desktop > programming environments have had for years but which web development > hasn't > been really able to take advantage of. > > The new job I am at has adopted it as company policy because of me and > so > did my last job. Also, fUseML is pretty useful although I am still > learning > it. They have a book published on Fusebox and fuseml that looks pretty > good. The print version hasn't been shipped yet but if you buy it you > get > the .PDF version pretty quick and then the print later. > > go to http://www.fusebox.org > > -Craig Bowes > Coldfusion Programmer > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 972.243.1171 > > > - Original Message - > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Friday, November 03, 2000 2:53 PM > Subject: fusebox > > > > Is anyone out there using the fusebox methodology? > > > > I have recently started this position here and I am the Cold Fusion > lead > and > > I was toying with the idea of recommending that we use the Fusebox > method > > for the complete REdeployment of our corporate Intranet. > > > > > > any feedback is well appreciated. > >
Re: fusebox
funny, I found that it DECREASES development time, once I learned it pretty well. - Original Message - From: "Karl Simanonok" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2000 12:21 PM Subject: Re: fusebox > Like I said: we've used Fusebox (you found proof), and having done so, > discovered that any benefits it may have are marginal at best. That > doesn't mean we're going to rewrite everything we've done in it! I've > still got old Perl code running from before CF was born (and somebody > might even ask me to write some more someday), but it doesn't mean I'm a > Perl fan of any kind. > > I forgot to acknowledge another Fusebox 'benefit' yesterday: since it > increases development time, you get to pad your clients' bills by using > it. ;) > > Regards, > > Karl S. > > Original Message: > > Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 18:54:12 -0800 > From: "Stephen M Aylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: fusebox / Cross Posted for annoyance > Message-ID: <01d201c04866$0317a840$0e01a8c0@iindev> > > huhm ... kinda weird that your site is fusebox - dontcha think? > > Steve > > -- -- > Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ > Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists or send a message with 'unsubscribe' in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists or send a message with 'unsubscribe' in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: fusebox
My 2 cents on Fusebox here, in 6 months of using this I've discovered: 1) Development takes slightly longer, but any expert developer won't feel a difference 2) New functions later on become so much easier to build (just a new fuse) 3) Modifications to existing stuff is easier (usually just building a new fuse or swapping an include) 4) Graphics people that are CF Illiterate find it easier to build around Cold Fusion (they even claim they can understand the code in a display page...whooaaa) 5) Speed of an application is barely slower...usually the extra CFINCLUDE's take some extra processing time, but nothing significant, and good servers are cheap 6) Apps seem to turn out smaller, granted it's easier to recycle more code and sharing variables globally is much easier Anybody dare try and contest this? Gregory Harris Web Developer Stirling Bridge Group LLC - Original Message - From: "Craig Bowes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2000 10:44 AM Subject: Re: fusebox > funny, I found that it DECREASES development time, once I learned it pretty > well. > > - Original Message - > From: "Karl Simanonok" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2000 12:21 PM > Subject: Re: fusebox > > > > Like I said: we've used Fusebox (you found proof), and having done so, > > discovered that any benefits it may have are marginal at best. That > > doesn't mean we're going to rewrite everything we've done in it! I've > > still got old Perl code running from before CF was born (and somebody > > might even ask me to write some more someday), but it doesn't mean I'm a > > Perl fan of any kind. > > > > I forgot to acknowledge another Fusebox 'benefit' yesterday: since it > > increases development time, you get to pad your clients' bills by using > > it. ;) > > > > Regards, > > > > Karl S. > > > > Original Message: > > > > Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 18:54:12 -0800 > > From: "Stephen M Aylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Subject: Re: fusebox / Cross Posted for annoyance > > Message-ID: <01d201c04866$0317a840$0e01a8c0@iindev> > > > > huhm ... kinda weird that your site is fusebox - dontcha think? > > > > Steve > > > > -- > -- > > Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ > > Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists or send > a message with 'unsubscribe' in the body to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- -- > Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ > Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists or send a message with 'unsubscribe' in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists or send a message with 'unsubscribe' in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: fusebox
Thanks for the detail, Karl. I must disagree with your basic point, though. You say that "it is a mistake to put the cart before the horse and apply a single design methodology to every application one builds". If the alternative is to develop a new strategy tailored to each individual project, then that sounds like bad news. I'm the first to admit that FuseBox is not a perfect methodology for every occasion, but I would always prefer to adapt a single methodology, ANY single methodlogy, always provided that it is 'sufficiently flexible' and not too cumbersome. FuseBox is the only candidate that I have yet seen for a CF methodology/architecture that satisifies my minimal requirements of usability and flexibility, so I am very happy to use it. In short, I disagree with your list of priorities: 1: application performance 2: maintainability 3: cost of development I ALWAYS put ease of development and maintainability BEFORE application performance, and my clients would be horrified if I did otherwise. Performance issues are usually most economically addressed by enhancing your infrastructure (CPU power, RAM, bandwidth), not by squeezing millisecond gains from CF file accesses. Developer time might cost between $100 and $300 per hour. For one hour of developer time, then, I can double the RAM on my production server, and achieve substantial performance gains. To summarize, I PREFER to squeeze everything into one architecture/methodology, even though that methodology is not perfect. This makes our applications maintainable, enhancable, robust, understandable, and inexpensive. On the odd occasion that performance criteria are so rigorous that our standard methodology can't handle it, then AND ONLY THEN do we modify it. Re-inventing the wheel each and every time is bad for everyone, devlopers and clients included. As for your detailed criticisms. Breaking your code into pieces BEFORE you know you are going to re-use the pieces is one of the GREAT benefits of FuseBox. It's incredible how much you can end up re-using, when the pieces are already there. If you wait until an opportunity to re-use becomes obvious before breaking up the code, then developers are discouraged from re-using and they might decide it's easier to cut and paste. I really don't mind much if people want to use application.cfm instead of app_globals.cfm. I use application.cfm just to check that all requests are going through index.cfm. This also prevents the server from searching endlessly up the tree. So, I don't think FuseBox is the "methodology du jour". In fact, the only credible alternative architecture/methodology I've seen is CFOBJECTS, which is even MORE heavy on file accesses, and has a much steeper learning curve. Anyway everybody, if you haven't tried FuseBox, give it a go, and don't be put off. It's true that some people don't like it. For the life of me, though, I can't see why. Lee (Bjork) Borkman http://bjork.net ColdFusion Tags by Bjork -Original Message- From: Karl Simanonok [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Your questions deserve a much more thorough analysis and response than I have time available for, but I'll try to hit some of the high points. ... IMPORTANT NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachment to it is intended only to be read or used by the named addressee. It is confidential and may contain legally privileged information. No confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by any mistaken transmission to you. If you receive this e-mail in error, please immediately delete it from your system and notify the sender. You must not disclose, copy or use any part of this e-mail if you are not the intended recipient. The RTA is not responsible for any unauthorised alterations to this e-mail or attachment to it. Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists or send a message with 'unsubscribe' in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: fusebox
Lee, Thanks, I was getting ready to do the same thing. I wish people would try Fusebox before they just bash it. There is a GREAT network of some of the BEST CF developers in the world that are on the Fusebox email list. If you have questions, concerns, or what ever join that list and learn about it. I think that most people, not all, but most people that go bashing it, one don't really understand CF, and two, don't understand Fusebox at all. In short, join the list, read the book, download the tags and samples and take an hour and learn it. It's really not all that hard to figure out. Just my .02 Bill -Original Message- From: BORKMAN Lee [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2000 9:49 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: fusebox Thanks for the detail, Karl. I must disagree with your basic point, though. You say that "it is a mistake to put the cart before the horse and apply a single design methodology to every application one builds". If the alternative is to develop a new strategy tailored to each individual project, then that sounds like bad news. I'm the first to admit that FuseBox is not a perfect methodology for every occasion, but I would always prefer to adapt a single methodology, ANY single methodlogy, always provided that it is 'sufficiently flexible' and not too cumbersome. FuseBox is the only candidate that I have yet seen for a CF methodology/architecture that satisifies my minimal requirements of usability and flexibility, so I am very happy to use it. In short, I disagree with your list of priorities: 1: application performance 2: maintainability 3: cost of development I ALWAYS put ease of development and maintainability BEFORE application performance, and my clients would be horrified if I did otherwise. Performance issues are usually most economically addressed by enhancing your infrastructure (CPU power, RAM, bandwidth), not by squeezing millisecond gains from CF file accesses. Developer time might cost between $100 and $300 per hour. For one hour of developer time, then, I can double the RAM on my production server, and achieve substantial performance gains. To summarize, I PREFER to squeeze everything into one architecture/methodology, even though that methodology is not perfect. This makes our applications maintainable, enhancable, robust, understandable, and inexpensive. On the odd occasion that performance criteria are so rigorous that our standard methodology can't handle it, then AND ONLY THEN do we modify it. Re-inventing the wheel each and every time is bad for everyone, devlopers and clients included. As for your detailed criticisms. Breaking your code into pieces BEFORE you know you are going to re-use the pieces is one of the GREAT benefits of FuseBox. It's incredible how much you can end up re-using, when the pieces are already there. If you wait until an opportunity to re-use becomes obvious before breaking up the code, then developers are discouraged from re-using and they might decide it's easier to cut and paste. I really don't mind much if people want to use application.cfm instead of app_globals.cfm. I use application.cfm just to check that all requests are going through index.cfm. This also prevents the server from searching endlessly up the tree. So, I don't think FuseBox is the "methodology du jour". In fact, the only credible alternative architecture/methodology I've seen is CFOBJECTS, which is even MORE heavy on file accesses, and has a much steeper learning curve. Anyway everybody, if you haven't tried FuseBox, give it a go, and don't be put off. It's true that some people don't like it. For the life of me, though, I can't see why. Lee (Bjork) Borkman http://bjork.net ColdFusion Tags by Bjork Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists or send a message with 'unsubscribe' in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: fusebox
Well said I myself like to print out all the fusebox docs and lay them out on the floor then i grease my self up like a mad scotsman and roll around in them. Hardly anything is as fast as a greased scotsman, but fusebox evens speeds that up :) Mike Cartier #code.monkey# > ** Original Subject: RE: fusebox > ** Original Sender: "Bill Killillay" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > ** Original Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 01:27:45 -0500 > ** Original Message follows... > > Lee, > > Thanks, I was getting ready to do the same thing. I wish > people would try Fusebox before they just bash it. There is > a GREAT network of some of the BEST CF developers in the > world that are on the Fusebox email list. If you have > questions, concerns, or what ever join that list and learn > about it. I think that most people, not all, but most > people that go bashing it, one don't really understand CF, > and two, don't understand Fusebox at all. In short, join > the list, read the book, download the tags and samples and > take an hour and learn it. It's really not all that hard to > figure out. > > Just my .02 > Bill > > > > -Original Message- >** - End Original Message --- ** > Change is the only constant Download NeoPlanet at http://www.neoplanet.com Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists or send a message with 'unsubscribe' in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: fusebox
Has anyone ever told you have a sick sense of humor? :) I like it. Russel Russel Madere, Jr. Senior Web Developer ICQ: 5446158 http://www.TurboSquid.com Some days you eat the bear; some days the bear eats you. > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2000 13:05 > To: CF-Talk > Subject: RE: fusebox > > > Well said > > I myself like to print out all the fusebox docs and lay them out > on the floor > then i grease my self up like a mad scotsman and roll around in them. > Hardly anything is as fast as a greased scotsman, but fusebox > evens speeds that up :) > > > > Mike Cartier > #code.monkey# > > > [snip] > Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists or send a message with 'unsubscribe' in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: fusebox
Mike, wonderful mental picture you've painted...Thanks so much for sharing :) Anyone who knows Mike most likely has a bad taste in their mouths now. *chuckle* -Kev > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2000 2:05 PM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: RE: fusebox > > > Well said > > I myself like to print out all the fusebox docs and lay them out > on the floor > then i grease my self up like a mad scotsman and roll around in them. > Hardly anything is as fast as a greased scotsman, but fusebox > evens speeds that up :) > > > > Mike Cartier > #code.monkey# > > > > > > ** Original Subject: RE: fusebox > > ** Original Sender: "Bill Killillay" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > ** Original Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 01:27:45 -0500 > > > ** Original Message follows... > > > > > Lee, > > > > Thanks, I was getting ready to do the same thing. I wish > > people would try Fusebox before they just bash it. There is > > a GREAT network of some of the BEST CF developers in the > > world that are on the Fusebox email list. If you have > > questions, concerns, or what ever join that list and learn > > about it. I think that most people, not all, but most > > people that go bashing it, one don't really understand CF, > > and two, don't understand Fusebox at all. In short, join > > the list, read the book, download the tags and samples and > > take an hour and learn it. It's really not all that hard to > > figure out. > > > > Just my .02 > > Bill > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > >** - End Original Message --- ** > > > > > > > > > > > > Change is the only constant > > Download NeoPlanet at http://www.neoplanet.com > > -- > -- > Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ > Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists > or send a message with 'unsubscribe' in the body to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists or send a message with 'unsubscribe' in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: fusebox
ANyone who knows mike..well..maybe they're worse!? Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists or send a message with 'unsubscribe' in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: fusebox
wouldn't that depend on where their mouth happened to be while there was a greased up mad scotsman on the loose. - Original Message - From: "Kevin Langevin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2000 11:20 AM Subject: RE: fusebox > Mike, wonderful mental picture you've painted...Thanks so much for sharing > :) > > Anyone who knows Mike most likely has a bad taste in their mouths now. > *chuckle* > > > -Kev > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2000 2:05 PM > > To: CF-Talk > > Subject: RE: fusebox > > > > > > Well said > > > > I myself like to print out all the fusebox docs and lay them out > > on the floor > > then i grease my self up like a mad scotsman and roll around in them. > > Hardly anything is as fast as a greased scotsman, but fusebox > > evens speeds that up :) > > > > > > > > Mike Cartier > > #code.monkey# > > > > > > > > > > > ** Original Subject: RE: fusebox > > > ** Original Sender: "Bill Killillay" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > ** Original Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 01:27:45 -0500 > > > > > ** Original Message follows... > > > > > > > > Lee, > > > > > > Thanks, I was getting ready to do the same thing. I wish > > > people would try Fusebox before they just bash it. There is > > > a GREAT network of some of the BEST CF developers in the > > > world that are on the Fusebox email list. If you have > > > questions, concerns, or what ever join that list and learn > > > about it. I think that most people, not all, but most > > > people that go bashing it, one don't really understand CF, > > > and two, don't understand Fusebox at all. In short, join > > > the list, read the book, download the tags and samples and > > > take an hour and learn it. It's really not all that hard to > > > figure out. > > > > > > Just my .02 > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > > >** - End Original Message --- ** > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Change is the only constant > > > > Download NeoPlanet at http://www.neoplanet.com > > > > -- > > -- > > Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ > > Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists > > or send a message with 'unsubscribe' in the body to > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > -- -- > Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ > Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists or send a message with 'unsubscribe' in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists or send a message with 'unsubscribe' in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: fusebox
> My 2 cents on Fusebox here, in 6 months of using this I've discovered: > > 1) Development takes slightly longer, but any expert > developer won't feel a difference An expert developer might not find Fusebox to be a useful organizational method for their code, either. > 2) New functions later on become so much easier to build > (just a new fuse) If by "new functions" you mean additional application modules, people have been organizing applications into modules long before Fusebox existed, and will continue to do so long after anyone can remember Fusebox, or CF. The biggest problem with building new functionality into an application isn't the organization of CFML scripts, but the limitations of the existing data schema, and the potential costs of changing that data schema. > 3) Modifications to existing stuff is easier (usually just > building a new fuse or swapping an include) I fail to see how it's easier to read the index.cfm file to find what file to change, then open and change that file, than it is to simply open a single file, find the section that needs to be changed, and change it. > 4) Graphics people that are CF Illiterate find it easier to > build around Cold Fusion (they even claim they can understand > the code in a display page...whooaaa) We haven't had any graphics integration issues to date, so this hasn't been a concern for us. > 5) Speed of an application is barely slower...usually the > extra CFINCLUDE's take some extra processing time, but nothing > significant, and good servers are cheap My complaints with Fusebox aren't driven by performance issues. I suspect there's little difference in performance, all other things being equal, except that Fusebox developers might be less likely to partition their application logic, which may negatively affect performance. > 6) Apps seem to turn out smaller, granted it's easier to > recycle more code and sharing variables globally is much easier I don't think Fusebox apps are smaller, or especially larger, than non-Fusebox apps. I don't think it's any easier to recycle code - if you write reusable code in modules, they're reusable, whether you're using Fusebox or not. I don't think it's any easier to share variables globally, either. I don't see how it could be any easier than simply declaring constants in application.cfm or using the Application scope. > Anybody dare try and contest this? Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ voice: (202) 797-5496 fax: (202) 797-5444 Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists or send a message with 'unsubscribe' in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: fusebox
> I must disagree with your basic point, though. You say that > "it is a mistake to put the cart before the horse and apply > a single design methodology to every application one builds". > If the alternative is to develop a new strategy tailored to > each individual project, then that sounds like bad news. > > I'm the first to admit that FuseBox is not a perfect > methodology for every occasion, but I would always prefer to > adapt a single methodology, ANY single methodlogy, always > provided that it is 'sufficiently flexible' and not too > cumbersome. FuseBox is the only candidate that I have yet > seen for a CF methodology/architecture that satisifies my > minimal requirements of usability and flexibility, so I am > very happy to use it. I guess that part of my problem with Fusebox is that I'm not exactly sure what you'd call it. Is Fusebox a methodology? I don't think so. All it does is tell you how to organize your code. That's not a methodology. It doesn't really address the design process. It doesn't address the process of application development. All it does is tell you where to put code. I found this to be interesting reading about methodologies: http://www.martinfowler.com/articles/newMethodology.html Is Fusebox an architecture? Again, I don't think so. All it does is tell you how to organize your CFML code and HTML markup. It doesn't address how to structure your data schema, or how to access that schema effectively. It doesn't tell you how to partition application logic - in fact, it discourages the partitioning of application logic a bit, if you buy the whole thing, with its focus on portability across databases. So, what is it? I'm not really sure. I do know that when I build a CF application, my problems don't come from organizing my CF code, or even getting optimal reuse value from that code. > In short, I disagree with your list of priorities: > 1: application performance > 2: maintainability > 3: cost of development > > I ALWAYS put ease of development and maintainability BEFORE > application performance, and my clients would be horrified > if I did otherwise. > > Performance issues are usually most economically addressed by > enhancing your infrastructure (CPU power, RAM, bandwidth), not > by squeezing millisecond gains from CF file accesses. Developer > time might cost between $100 and $300 per hour. For one hour of > developer time, then, I can double the RAM on my production > server, and achieve substantial performance gains. In general, in the broadest sense, I'd agree with this. There are lots of specific places where I'd disagree, though. For example, you could do everything with simple HTML forms; from a pure maintenance perspective, that's obviously best. However, you can make your applications better in some cases by adding complexity, in the form of things like JavaScript and frames, etc. I also don't believe that using Fusebox really affects maintenance costs all that much. I've done maintenance on plenty of applications, with and without Fusebox, and haven't found it any easier to maintain the Fusebox ones. CFML scripts generally just aren't that complicated. As long as the original developer uses some common-sense file and directory organization, a competent CF developer won't have trouble maintaining the application. > As for your detailed criticisms. Breaking your code into > pieces BEFORE you know you are going to re-use the pieces is > one of the GREAT benefits of FuseBox. It's incredible how much > you can end up re-using, when the pieces are already there. If > you wait until an opportunity to re-use becomes obvious before > breaking up the code, then developers are discouraged from > re-using and they might decide it's easier to cut and paste. This, to me, sounds like a flaw in the design process. During that process, you should be looking for what can be reused and encapsulating it. This shouldn't be something that you find out halfway through the development process. If everything is mindlessly broken into the smallest atomic pieces, what's the point? Do you build every line of code with the idea that it will be reused? Of course not. You identify algorithms and separate processes, and build components to encapsulate them. > So, I don't think FuseBox is the "methodology du jour". In > fact, the only credible alternative architecture/methodology > I've seen is CFOBJECTS, which is even MORE heavy on file > accesses, and has a much steeper learning curve. I'm not convinced of the need for a CF-specific development architecture at all. Again, the simple application of common sense will do fine, instead of having a "rulebook". The point of using CF is that it's a high-level, simple CGI programming tool. It doesn't warrant architectural rules. If you want to build an application architecture, you'd be better off spending more time on application partitioning. > Anyway everybody, if you haven't tried FuseBox, give it a go,
RE: fusebox
> It's true that some people don't like it. For the life of me, > though, I can't see why. Funny you should say that. I don't see why people like it so much, myself. I guess I'm just crazy, though. Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ voice: (202) 797-5496 fax: (202) 797-5444 Dave, Have you taken a gander at CFObjects? What is your take on that framework? Dan Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists or send a message with 'unsubscribe' in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: fusebox
Hi Dave, Of course you are right. If you have excellent methodologies, architectures, and standards in place already, then maybe you have no use for FuseBox. FuseBox, as you point out, is neither a complete methodology, nor a complete architecture, nor a complete standard. It is just a bunch of techniques that has been hammered out by a large community of CF developers, who want more people to keep adding their help and suggestions. It will obviously offer most benefit to people whose code is all over the place, and basically have no idea, but I can assure you that it helps out CF_GODs like me too ;-) FuseBox includes: 1: Suggestions about methodology 2: Suggestions about CF architecture (not usually about data design, etc) 3: Suggestions about roughly-optimal code 'factoring' (it's definitely NOT about breaking code into meaningless 'atomic' pieces) 4: Suggestions about making mundane coding decisions (like file naming) basically automatic, 5: Suggestions for engaging your expertise with the INTERESTING parts of the problem 6: etc By virtue of its large user community, its open source ethos, and the kind of debate we are now engaged in, FuseBox gets better and better, and has now reached a substantial level of maturity. Nobody is suggesting that FuseBox should or could replace any organization's existing Software Engineering methodologies. But hey, it doesn't cost a single cent, so you can happily take on board 10% of the suggestions and throw out the rest, with no loss to anyone. I haven't yet seen a high-level methodology that's incompatible with FuseBox. The basic point is that FuseBox works. Many, many developers can testify to that. It is not, however, perfect, nor does anyone claim that it is. It's just a whole bunch of people working together, trying to do things in roughly the same way, resulting in a consistency of code that benefits EVERYONE, and agreeing to help improve the way we are all doing things. So no matter what proportion of the FuseBox techniques you decide to use, it helps you and us and all CF developers, if you come along WITH us, and help fix up the things you don't like. Believe me, there is plenty of heated debate going on all the time over on the FuseBox list. See you there, neh? Lee (Bjork) Borkman http://bjork.net ColdFusion Tags by Bjork IMPORTANT NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachment to it is intended only to be read or used by the named addressee. It is confidential and may contain legally privileged information. No confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by any mistaken transmission to you. If you receive this e-mail in error, please immediately delete it from your system and notify the sender. You must not disclose, copy or use any part of this e-mail if you are not the intended recipient. The RTA is not responsible for any unauthorised alterations to this e-mail or attachment to it. Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists or send a message with 'unsubscribe' in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: fusebox
True on all of the above...but > The basic point is that FuseBox works. Many, many developers can testify to > that. It is not, however, perfect, nor does anyone claim that it is. It's > just a whole bunch of people working together, trying to do things in > roughly the same way, resulting in a consistency of code that benefits > EVERYONE, and agreeing to help improve the way we are all doing things. > Everyone except those who dont have time to learn or care to learn Fusebox. When the day comes that someone dumps a site on me that was coded in Fusebox, and this is my main beef with the whole deal. It's going to take me LONGER to learn Fusebox and then go about adding the lastest widget! I know it's going to happen someday..and I am going to be royally cheesed off at you personally Lee when that day comes! just kidding man...but you get my point? jon Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists or send a message with 'unsubscribe' in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: fusebox
This conversation is always the oddest topic. I am sure the day you walk into Figleaf you are handed the Rig Veda of methodology standards. Anyone that has been to a conference and heard Dave or whoever from Figleaf speak must concede they have their shit completely together. However, if you are just beginning to develop or are beginning to build a team or unhappy with your present methodology it is not going to kill anyone to research prevailing methodologies. This isn't rocket science, the docs are simple to read and understand. Read them, if you can benefit from it use them. If not find one that suites you. The reason why I find this odd, is because I have yet to read any of the naysayers write "I hate fusebox, go to this link and look at my methods and standards because they are way better. Derision is easy, if you are going to knock something, atleast give all the people reading it an alternative. Karl, straight out, you have no idea what you are talking about. >It slightly increases development time I cannot think of one person that programs in fusebox that would agree with this. Perhaps your development time was slower because you are not used to programming in fusebox. I am sure that if I used whatever legendary, widely used, published methodology you use, I would have a slower time developing in it because though I might understand it, I would not be used to programming in it. >obfuscates CF debugging completely not the case, and please tell me you incorporate structured error handling and don't rely solely on CF's debugging. >necessitates superfluous code The whole point of fusebox is code reusability and non superfluous code >processing time by routing every page call through an index.cfm WTF? >We now only use it when clients insist that they want their applications built around it (usually they've heard a little about >Fusebox and think it's cutting-edge so they want it without really understanding it). Who are your clients? I have built everything from porn to international financial institutions and my clients have never even heard of fusebox. If any, the only buzz words they know are Java, CF, Broadvision, Websphere. I have never had a client ever ask me which methodology I use in any of those applications. Dave, >I fail to see how it's easier to read the index.cfm file to find what file to change, then open and change that file, than it is >to simply open a single file, find the section that needs to be changed, and change it. It might not be easier if you are using a different methodology, however, all things being equal I have found application logic easier to explain in fusebox as each application and subapplication has a roadmap which is the index.cfm >> Anybody dare try and contest this? >Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software >http://www.figleaf.com/ >voice: (202) 797-5496 >fax: (202) 797-5444 Priceless! Sean Renet - Original Message - From: "BORKMAN Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2000 9:27 PM Subject: RE: fusebox > Hi Dave, > > Of course you are right. If you have excellent methodologies, > architectures, and standards in place already, then maybe you have no use > for FuseBox. FuseBox, as you point out, is neither a complete methodology, > nor a complete architecture, nor a complete standard. It is just a bunch of > techniques that has been hammered out by a large community of CF developers, > who want more people to keep adding their help and suggestions. It will > obviously offer most benefit to people whose code is all over the place, and > basically have no idea, but I can assure you that it helps out CF_GODs like > me too ;-) > > FuseBox includes: > 1: Suggestions about methodology > 2: Suggestions about CF architecture (not usually about data design, etc) > 3: Suggestions about roughly-optimal code 'factoring' (it's definitely NOT > about breaking code into meaningless 'atomic' pieces) > 4: Suggestions about making mundane coding decisions (like file naming) > basically automatic, > 5: Suggestions for engaging your expertise with the INTERESTING parts of the > problem > 6: etc > > By virtue of its large user community, its open source ethos, and the kind > of debate we are now engaged in, FuseBox gets better and better, and has now > reached a substantial level of maturity. > > Nobody is suggesting that FuseBox should or could replace any organization's > existing Software Engineering methodologies. But hey, it doesn't cost a > single cent, so you can happily take on board 10% of the suggestions and > throw out the rest, with no loss to anyone. I haven't yet seen a high-level > methodology that's incompatible with FuseBox. &g
Re: fusebox
The beauty of fusebox is that a five year old can sit down and look at the site architecture and code and figure it out without having to read one page from that excellent new book "Fusebox: Methodology and Techniques" or go to fusebox.org and read any tutorials. While I have adopted many fusebox techniques, I still have other methods that I use as well. Fusebox is a very good resource for beginning CF developers, but should NOT be the only method used. Greg - Original Message - From: Jon Hall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: CF-Talk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, November 10, 2000 6:29 AM Subject: Re: fusebox > True on all of the above...but > > > The basic point is that FuseBox works. Many, many developers can testify > to > > that. It is not, however, perfect, nor does anyone claim that it is. > It's > > just a whole bunch of people working together, trying to do things in > > roughly the same way, resulting in a consistency of code that benefits > > EVERYONE, and agreeing to help improve the way we are all doing things. > > > > Everyone except those who dont have time to learn or care to learn Fusebox. > When the day comes that someone dumps a site on me that was coded in > Fusebox, and this is my main beef with the whole deal. > It's going to take me LONGER to learn Fusebox and then go about adding the > lastest widget! > I know it's going to happen someday..and I am going to be royally cheesed > off at you personally Lee when that day comes! > > just kidding man...but you get my point? > > jon > > -- -- > Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ > Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists or send a message with 'unsubscribe' in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists or send a message with 'unsubscribe' in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: fusebox
> Have you taken a gander at CFObjects? What is your take on > that framework? Yikes! That's even worse. When I want to do OO programming, I'll use Java, not CF. Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ voice: (202) 797-5496 fax: (202) 797-5444 Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists or send a message with 'unsubscribe' in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: fusebox
OK, where is the sign up for the fusebox email list? Thanks, Andrew >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: CF-Talk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: RE: fusebox >Date: 09 Nov 2000 11:05:23 -0800 > >Well said > >I myself like to print out all the fusebox docs and lay them out on the >floor >then i grease my self up like a mad scotsman and roll around in them. >Hardly anything is as fast as a greased scotsman, but fusebox evens speeds >that up :) > > > >Mike Cartier >#code.monkey# > > > > > > ** Original Subject: RE: fusebox > > ** Original Sender: "Bill Killillay" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > ** Original Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 01:27:45 -0500 > > > ** Original Message follows... > > > > > Lee, > > > > Thanks, I was getting ready to do the same thing. I wish > > people would try Fusebox before they just bash it. There is > > a GREAT network of some of the BEST CF developers in the > > world that are on the Fusebox email list. If you have > > questions, concerns, or what ever join that list and learn > > about it. I think that most people, not all, but most > > people that go bashing it, one don't really understand CF, > > and two, don't understand Fusebox at all. In short, join > > the list, read the book, download the tags and samples and > > take an hour and learn it. It's really not all that hard to > > figure out. > > > > Just my .02 > > Bill > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > >** - End Original Message --- ** > > > > > > > > > > > >Change is the only constant > >Download NeoPlanet at http://www.neoplanet.com > > >Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ >Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists or send a >message with 'unsubscribe' in the body to >[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists or send a message with 'unsubscribe' in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: fusebox
www.houseoffusion.com in the mailing lists section. > OK, where is the sign up for the fusebox email list? > Thanks, > Andrew > > > >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >To: CF-Talk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Subject: RE: fusebox > >Date: 09 Nov 2000 11:05:23 -0800 > > > >Well said > > > >I myself like to print out all the fusebox docs and lay them out on the > >floor > >then i grease my self up like a mad scotsman and roll around in them. > >Hardly anything is as fast as a greased scotsman, but fusebox evens speeds > >that up :) > > > > > > > >Mike Cartier > >#code.monkey# > > > > > > > > > > > ** Original Subject: RE: fusebox > > > ** Original Sender: "Bill Killillay" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > ** Original Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 01:27:45 -0500 > > > > > ** Original Message follows... > > > > > > > > Lee, > > > > > > Thanks, I was getting ready to do the same thing. I wish > > > people would try Fusebox before they just bash it. There is > > > a GREAT network of some of the BEST CF developers in the > > > world that are on the Fusebox email list. If you have > > > questions, concerns, or what ever join that list and learn > > > about it. I think that most people, not all, but most > > > people that go bashing it, one don't really understand CF, > > > and two, don't understand Fusebox at all. In short, join > > > the list, read the book, download the tags and samples and > > > take an hour and learn it. It's really not all that hard to > > > figure out. > > > > > > Just my .02 > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > > >** - End Original Message --- ** > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Change is the only constant > > > >Download NeoPlanet at http://www.neoplanet.com > > > >--- - > >Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ > >Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists or send a > >message with 'unsubscribe' in the body to > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > _ > Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. > > Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at > http://profiles.msn.com. > > -- -- > Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ > Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists or send a message with 'unsubscribe' in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists or send a message with 'unsubscribe' in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: fusebox
LOL What is it that Forta says... CF is not the answer for everything... something like that. > > Have you taken a gander at CFObjects? What is > > your take on > > that framework? > > Yikes! That's even worse. When I want to do OO > programming, I'll use Java, > not CF. > > Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software > http://www.figleaf.com/ > voice: (202) 797-5496 > fax: (202) 797-5444 Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists or send a message with 'unsubscribe' in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: fusebox
Wow Jon! I don't want to be unkind, but if this message says what I think it does, it's one of the most wrong-headed things I've ever read. You are basically arguing that it's MY fault if I don't do things the way that YOU do them, because if you ever have to work on my code, you won't be familiar with it's structure; and that MY methodology is therefore somehow flawed. In short, your are arguging against ANY methodology, except the one you already happen to use. Look, if you want to AVOID this kind of inconvenience when shifting from your methodology to another one, then wouldn't it be a good idea to adopt a methodology that is actually being used by a large number of people? That way you MINIMIZE your potential confusion. You have to wonder about the kind of developer who does not "care to learn Fusebox", when FuseBox is given so much praise by so many. I header about it. I made the time, took a good look, and now I do things better because of it. When you (or ANYONE else) tell me about the even better way that you use, then I'll make the time and learn about that too, then I'll do things even better. Anyway, maybe you were kidding about your WHOLE message. (and no, I don't get your point at all, sorry;-]) Lee (Bjork) Borkman http://bjork.net ColdFusion Tags by Bjork -Original Message- From: Jon Hall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] True on all of the above...but > ... trying to do things in > roughly the same way, resulting in a consistency of code that benefits > EVERYONE, and agreeing to help improve the way we are all doing things. > Everyone except those who dont have time to learn or care to learn Fusebox. When the day comes that someone dumps a site on me that was coded in Fusebox, and this is my main beef with the whole deal. It's going to take me LONGER to learn Fusebox and then go about adding the lastest widget! I know it's going to happen someday..and I am going to be royally cheesed off at you personally Lee when that day comes! just kidding man...but you get my point? IMPORTANT NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachment to it is intended only to be read or used by the named addressee. It is confidential and may contain legally privileged information. No confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by any mistaken transmission to you. If you receive this e-mail in error, please immediately delete it from your system and notify the sender. You must not disclose, copy or use any part of this e-mail if you are not the intended recipient. The RTA is not responsible for any unauthorised alterations to this e-mail or attachment to it. Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists or send a message with 'unsubscribe' in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: fusebox
Why beat around the bush -- just tell it like it is {:-)
Arden Weiss
410-757-3487
-Original Message-
From: BORKMAN Lee [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2000 6:08 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject:RE: fusebox
Wow Jon!
I don't want to be unkind, but if this message says what I think it does,
it's one of the most wrong-headed things I've ever read.
You are basically arguing that it's MY fault if I don't do things the way
that YOU do them, because if you ever have to work on my code, you won't be
familiar with it's structure; and that MY methodology is therefore somehow
flawed. In short, your are arguging against ANY methodology, except the
one
you already happen to use.
Look, if you want to AVOID this kind of inconvenience when shifting from
your methodology to another one, then wouldn't it be a good idea to adopt a
methodology that is actually being used by a large number of people? That
way you MINIMIZE your potential confusion.
You have to wonder about the kind of developer who does not "care to learn
Fusebox", when FuseBox is given so much praise by so many. I header about
it. I made the time, took a good look, and now I do things better because
of it. When you (or ANYONE else) tell me about the even better way that
you
use, then I'll make the time and learn about that too, then I'll do things
even better.
Anyway, maybe you were kidding about your WHOLE message.
(and no, I don't get your point at all, sorry;-])
Lee (Bjork) Borkman
http://bjork.net ColdFusion Tags by Bjork
-Original Message-
From: Jon Hall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
True on all of the above...but
> ... trying to do things in
> roughly the same way, resulting in a consistency of code that benefits
> EVERYONE, and agreeing to help improve the way we are all doing things.
>
Everyone except those who dont have time to learn or care to learn Fusebox.
When the day comes that someone dumps a site on me that was coded in
Fusebox, and this is my main beef with the whole deal.
It's going to take me LONGER to learn Fusebox and then go about adding the
lastest widget!
I know it's going to happen someday..and I am going to be royally cheesed
off at you personally Lee when that day comes!
just kidding man...but you get my point?
IMPORTANT NOTICE:
This e-mail and any attachment to it is intended only to be read or used by
the named addressee. It is confidential and may contain legally privileged
information. No confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by any
mistaken transmission to you. If you receive this e-mail in error, please
immediately delete it from your system and notify the sender. You must not
disclose, copy or use any part of this e-mail if you are not the intended
recipient. The RTA is not responsible for any unauthorised alterations to
this e-mail or attachment to it.
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists or send a
message with 'unsubscribe' in the body to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists or send a message
with 'unsubscribe' in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: fusebox
Jon, > > Everyone except those who dont have time to learn or care to > learn Fusebox. > When the day comes that someone dumps a site on me that was coded in > Fusebox, and this is my main beef with the whole deal. > It's going to take me LONGER to learn Fusebox and then go about adding the > lastest widget! > I think that maybe you haven't seen any Fusebox code. I write fusebox-esque code all the time. Like everyone that use fusebox I use different bits of the methodology, but all of us use the same basic structure. I recently had a guy who hasn't ever looked at fusebox pick up my code and start making changes. I asked if he had any questions, his was response was 'No, seems clear enough.' Also, part of the fusebox concept is that you _can_ add new 'widgets' without knowing what the other parts of the application are doing. Part of the reason that Steve Nelson et al. came up with Fusebox was to help them with a large project that was being built by a number of remote developers. Fusebox was developed to allow them to hand a section or circuit (e.g. the search) from the whole application to a developer and he/she could build it without needing to thing about the rest of the application. All the parts then came together under a common index.cfm to build the complete application. Regards Stephen Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists or send a message with 'unsubscribe' in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: fusebox
I think it would be nice if there was a spot where we could put the most common topics on this discussion board. For example: A fusebox pro / con. Two seasoned cf coders one that is for fusebox, one that is against fusebox that are willing to write a page or five describing the benifits/drawbacks of the methodolgy. I strongly believe that methodogies are crucial when dealing with a large group of coders. You can't have all 12 programmers doing their own format of code, that would be messy and difficult to backtrack. People who do their own programming without large groups of coders may not see the importance of methodologies. Because, what does it matter if it works? I can read it just fine. I belive that is a valid point. But for large scale operations that involves several departments/groups/people one single format is necessary for maximum effeciency Wether or not fusebox is that methodogy i can honestly say i dont know, i've paged through the free paper on it. I picked out somethings I thought were cool and adapted them into my own format (like putting queries in their own file and cfincluding them, that's a good idea). But I am in no means a seasoned fusebox vetran. Short: We've had this discussion a thousand times, and still havent found any good ground. We need a reference of two programmers, one who is pro-fusebox and willing to write out what he likes/dislikes, another programmer who is anti-fusebox and willing to write out what he likes/dislikes. I'd like to see the other methologies that are out there though, Thanks, Gavin Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists or send a message with 'unsubscribe' in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: fusebox
| I'd like to see the other methologies that are out there though, | | Thanks, | Gavin www.switch-box.org www.black-box.org Todd Ashworth Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists or send a message with 'unsubscribe' in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: fusebox
Not to say anything bad about switch-box but it looks like someone wanted to brand they're own "technique" that looks more like a fusebox styled with url differences and nested cfswitch statements - Original Message - From: "Todd Ashworth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2000 12:02 PM Subject: Re: fusebox > | I'd like to see the other methologies that are out there though, > | > | Thanks, > | Gavin > > www.switch-box.org > > www.black-box.org > > Todd Ashworth > > > -- -- > Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ > Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists or send a message with 'unsubscribe' in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists or send a message with 'unsubscribe' in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: fusebox
Yeah .. It looks more complicated than it needs to be to me too. Does anyone know of any other methodologies out there? Todd Ashworth - Original Message - From: "Fred T. Sanders" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2000 2:04 PM Subject: Re: fusebox | Not to say anything bad about switch-box but it looks like someone wanted to | brand they're own "technique" that looks more like a fusebox styled with url | differences and nested cfswitch statements | - Original Message - | From: "Todd Ashworth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | Sent: Monday, November 13, 2000 12:02 PM | Subject: Re: fusebox | | | > | I'd like to see the other methologies that are out there though, | > | | > | Thanks, | > | Gavin | > | > www.switch-box.org | > | > www.black-box.org | > | > Todd Ashworth Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists or send a message with 'unsubscribe' in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: fusebox
go to www.fusebox.org and you can download the code for that site. put it up on your CF server and look at the code and layout of that site. this may help you better understant it... - Original Message - From: "Todd Ashworth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2000 10:36 AM Subject: Re: fusebox > Yeah .. It looks more complicated than it needs to be to me too. > > Does anyone know of any other methodologies out there? > > Todd Ashworth > > - Original Message - > From: "Fred T. Sanders" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Monday, November 13, 2000 2:04 PM > Subject: Re: fusebox > > > | Not to say anything bad about switch-box but it looks like someone wanted > to > | brand they're own "technique" that looks more like a fusebox styled with > url > | differences and nested cfswitch statements > | - Original Message - > | From: "Todd Ashworth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > | To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > | Sent: Monday, November 13, 2000 12:02 PM > | Subject: Re: fusebox > | > | > | > | I'd like to see the other methologies that are out there though, > | > | > | > | Thanks, > | > | Gavin > | > > | > www.switch-box.org > | > > | > www.black-box.org > | > > | > Todd Ashworth > > > -- -- > Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ > Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists or send a message with 'unsubscribe' in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists or send a message with 'unsubscribe' in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: fusebox
Actually, I was talking about switch-box looking more complicated than it has to be. I know of Fusebox, Black-box, and Switch-box. Does anyone know of any other methodologies? Todd Ashworth - Original Message - From: "Jesse" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2000 12:08 PM Subject: Re: fusebox | go to www.fusebox.org and you can download the code for that site. put it up | on your CF server and look at the code and layout of that site. this may | help you better understant it... Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists or send a message with 'unsubscribe' in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: fusebox
Well it isn't a methodology, but iiFramework (http://www.iiframework.com) is an application framework that makes a lot of the basic stuff like authentication and content management easier. Dave -Original Message- From: Todd Ashworth [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2000 11:43 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: fusebox Actually, I was talking about switch-box looking more complicated than it has to be. I know of Fusebox, Black-box, and Switch-box. Does anyone know of any other methodologies? Todd Ashworth - Original Message - From: "Jesse" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2000 12:08 PM Subject: Re: fusebox | go to www.fusebox.org and you can download the code for that site. put it up | on your CF server and look at the code and layout of that site. this may | help you better understant it... Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists or send a message with 'unsubscribe' in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists or send a message with 'unsubscribe' in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: fusebox
Not exactly along the same lines, but you might wish to review www.rational.com for the latest in Rational Unified Process and UML. -Andy At 12:42 PM 11/14/00 -0500, you wrote: >Actually, I was talking about switch-box looking more complicated than it >has to be. I know of Fusebox, Black-box, and Switch-box. Does anyone know >of any other methodologies? > >Todd Ashworth > >- Original Message - >From: "Jesse" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2000 12:08 PM >Subject: Re: fusebox > > >| go to www.fusebox.org and you can download the code for that site. put it >up >| on your CF server and look at the code and layout of that site. this may >| help you better understant it... > > > >Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ >Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists or send >a message with 'unsubscribe' in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists or send a message with 'unsubscribe' in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: fusebox ?
Douglas, Just edit the returnfuseaction tag. Remove the /#caller.fusetoken# from the end of the URLs in the CFLOCATION tags on lines 19 and 23. As I remember fusetoken was some kind of personal addition to fusebox that Steve Nelson and his company used and was never strictly a part of Fusebox, although it managed to find its way into some of the custom tags. Regards Stephen - Original Message - From: "Douglas Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, December 17, 2001 8:30 PM Subject: fusebox ? > I am needing help on returnfuseaction, this is my first use of the tag > and I get an error when trying to use it. I may be using it incorrectly. > > > > Error Diagnostic Information > > An error occurred while evaluating the expression: > > > "#returnURL#/#caller.fusetoken#" > > > > Error near line 27, column 22. > - > --- > > Error resolving parameter CALLER.FUSETOKEN > > > The object FUSETOKEN is not present in the scope named CALLER. It is > likely that you have misspelled the name of the object you are trying to > access. > > > Here is a portion of my index.cfm > > > > > > > > ACTION="return"> > > > > > > > > > ACTION="set" > RETURNURL="#CGI.PATH_INFO#?#request.attributesList#"> > ADDTOKEN="yes"> > > > > > > > This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for dependable ColdFusion Hosting. 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 ?
That is correct. Since the original fusebox suggested not setting client cookies, they passed cfid and cftoken on the url line - So that's what the variable #caller.fusetoken# was for. Mark -Original Message- From: Stephen Moretti [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2001 4:04 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: fusebox ? Douglas, Just edit the returnfuseaction tag. Remove the /#caller.fusetoken# from the end of the URLs in the CFLOCATION tags on lines 19 and 23. As I remember fusetoken was some kind of personal addition to fusebox that Steve Nelson and his company used and was never strictly a part of Fusebox, although it managed to find its way into some of the custom tags. Regards Stephen - Original Message - From: "Douglas Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, December 17, 2001 8:30 PM Subject: fusebox ? > I am needing help on returnfuseaction, this is my first use of the tag > and I get an error when trying to use it. I may be using it incorrectly. > > > > Error Diagnostic Information > > An error occurred while evaluating the expression: > > > "#returnURL#/#caller.fusetoken#" > > > > Error near line 27, column 22. > - > --- > > Error resolving parameter CALLER.FUSETOKEN > > > The object FUSETOKEN is not present in the scope named CALLER. It is > likely that you have misspelled the name of the object you are trying to > access. > > > Here is a portion of my index.cfm > > > > > > > > ACTION="return"> > > > > > > > > > ACTION="set" > RETURNURL="#CGI.PATH_INFO#?#request.attributesList#"> > ADDTOKEN="yes"> > > > > > > > __ This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for dependable ColdFusion Hosting. 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
Some like it, some don't. I find it very helpful in an app I'm developing. For example, when I add a new functionality, the list of CFINCLUDed files is the same as similar functions, except for the one of two that are different. This is a WHOLE lot easier than cutting and pasting the right parts of a similar function coded in a single CFAS template. If you like it, use it, if you don't, don't. best, paul At 02:22 PM 12/20/00 +, you wrote: >Whats the whole point of Fusebox? ~~ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
Re: Fusebox
Fusebox methodologies are analogous to an event handler in any sort of Windows programming. The event model is not new to developers, and is a tried and true practice. Moving that methodology to CF apps makes more than enough sense to me. I use FB methodologies in my CF apps, and they're easier to maintain not only by myself, but other developers here, beginners to pros. They're easier to enhance, modify, and remove functionality. IMO of course... At 06:38 AM 12/20/00 -0800, you wrote: >Some like it, some don't. I find it very >helpful in an app I'm developing. For >example, when I add a new functionality, >the list of CFINCLUDed files is the same >as similar functions, except for the one >of two that are different. This is a >WHOLE lot easier than cutting and pasting >the right parts of a similar function >coded in a single CFAS template. > >If you like it, use it, if you don't, don't. > >best, paul > >At 02:22 PM 12/20/00 +, you wrote: > >Whats the whole point of Fusebox? > > > ~~ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
Re: Fusebox
Hmm well there isn't really a whole point to fusebox per say. The point really is to have a architecture methodology. Fusebox attempts to standardize a methodology. This standard however doesn't work for everyone. For instance, if you work at Figleaf I would imagine when you walk in the door you get the "This is our methodology" handbook. That would be the standard for project architecture in that company. Now the stuff that comes out of Figleaf is just beyond compare, so I would say that whatever thier methods are, they most likely don't need or want a new one. But what does someone do if they are subcontracting work or just starting a development company and have no methodology? Well, you are going to have to develop some architecture rules that everyone adhears to. Fusebox attempts to offer a solution to such by standardizing a methodology. For me personally fusebox works quite well. I am a project magnet. I go weeks without answering my phone because I just cannot handle the load. Well quite honestly, I have been wrapping up two major projects so I haven't been answering the phone in a few months. However when I am, the work just streams in. What fusebox allows me to do is subcontract that work very easily. I can subcontract work to people I have never met or worked with, by simply delivering them a scope document. That the work is done in fusebox, there are no misunderstandings as to what I will accept as architecure and each developer can build thier module or piece of the project independently and when they are finished those modules can just be "plugged in" to each other. And so far as "most don't use fusebox" is concerned, I have never had a problem finding good developers that can program using fusebox's standards. Fusebox is far from complex. It makes programs easy to read by other developers that use the same methodology because you do not need to follow spaghetti-like threads to figure out what the programmer before you was doing or how they did it. You simply look at the main index page and see what fuseactions are attributed to which modules. Each module has its own index page which directs traffic in its subapplication. So, if you are fixing or modifying a message board you can easily figure out which templates are associated and what function those templates provide by simply looking at the index page. I find when I am hired to modify or fix pre-existing applications few clients have documentation for those applications and by and large, those applications are not well commented. For the client this means that a great deal of billable time is spent just figuring out how the application functions. Recently I was hired to modify a website built in fusebox. I have no idea who the previous developer was and the client's dog ate the documentation. However, it took less than an hour to figure out the application and less than a day to re-document it. Wherein the application was in its self complex the modifications were easily implemented as they were simply plugged in rather than redesigning spaghetti like business logic. Now, if you are not used to programming in fusebox, these principles may not be as appearant to you or to someone who does not use the methodology. Conversely, you may have a pre-existing methodology that just rocks and to you and your team it is very easily implemented, however that I do not use your methodology simple principles in your design may not be as appearant to me as I am not familiar with it. I am not sure what 10-15% extra work you are talking about, I find fusebox actually saves me time. Fusebox as a methodology leans heavily on code or module reuse. With the exception maybe of UI, each new project is made up of pre-existing modules that are just plugged in. Its kind of like building an an EJB which acts as your standard shopping cart. Everytime you have a client that needs a shopping cart you don't rebuild the thing over and over, you just plug yer EJB in. Fusebox is pretty much the same principle. Most of my small to mid-size clients are built by cutting and pasting modules then making a main index page which directs traffic. A standardized naming convention is but a fraction of application architecture. Fusebox has a naming convention as well, but the naming convention is arbitrary, the fusebox guys could have named their act_ templates cgi_ . So this gives you an idea what the template does, but says nothing of the over all architecture. Again, fusebox is A methodology. It is THE methodology that works for me. If you have a methodology that works for you and your company, chances are, like Figleaf you do not need to adopt a new one. However, if you or your company presently do not have a application architecture methodology or are looking for one that you can easily subcontract work with I highly recommend Fusebox. Sean Renet - Original Message - From: "war ape" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROT
RE: Fusebox
The fusebox methodology has many benefits, and I really don't think it adds any time to the development cycle. In fact, I'm pretty sure it helps speed up development. One of the greatest advantages of the style is that you can modularize you code, and in doing so, you can assign pieces of your application to various developers without worrying about them stepping on each other's toes. Another advantage is that because it is a documented approach to programming, the next programmers won't have to decipher your unique style in order to pick up where you left off. Another advantage is that certain companies (such as mine) require it. So if you don't do it, you're not going to get a job with certain companies. Lastly, it's very simple to follow the programming flow of a fusebox app. When something goes wrong, you simply search for the fuseaction in the index file and then you'll see right away all the templates in a single handy block that could be involved with the problem. I'm sure the folks on the Fusebox list would be happy to help you more with this. ---mark -- Mark Warrick Phone: (714) 547-5386 Efax.com Fax: (801) 730-7289 Personal Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Personal URL: http://www.warrick.net Business Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Business URL: http://www.fusioneers.com ICQ: 346566 -- > -Original Message- > From: war ape [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2000 6:22 AM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: Fusebox > > > > Whats the whole point of Fusebox? > I don't see how it makes an application any less proprietary > i i know it helps modularize an application for reuse, but how > does it help > make the application more understandable to other programmers? > Most don't use fusebox, so right there its been made harder > also i think it adds a dense layer of complexity to an application, > basically adding another 10-15% work to the appllication. > I don't see that it does much that could not be achieved with a > standardized > naming convention. > Sorry if i seem the philistine, but my mantra has always been simplicity, > simplicity is what makes an application more accessible to later > programmers > ~~ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
RE: Fusebox
Fusebox does not by any means make the business logic of an application any less proprietary than any other way of coding. However, what Fusebox does allow for is a consistent coding style that is very modular and easy to understand. The real power of Fusebox is that it makes team development a lot easier to segment and manage. At the same time, it ensures that the code produced by various developers has a certain amount of consistency. The long term benefits are that it makes it very easy for any developer to come back later and maintain code, without having to understand the full complexity of the application. Other key benefits of Fusebox: * Facilitates code reuse * Segments code into functional sub applications * Segments business logic from the display layer * Helps in n-tiering your application * Reduces the learning curve of new developers * Developers become a lot more efficient in coding * Simplifies development management overhead * Simplifies QA of applications (unit testing) * Facilitates scaling of your application The company I work for uses a slightly modified form of Fusebox (basically, we call "fuseaction" "method"). But it allows us to build very large scale applications, in an ever increasing period of time. And at the same time makes it easy to get new developers plugged into the process very quickly. I would suggest that you choose a coding methodology for yourself and your team. The real key is that you find a practice that ensures consistency. More times than not, "consistency" is more valuable in the long term than "correctness." Fusebox just happens to be a methodology that has been adopted by a large community of developers. There are many other styles out there, such as CFObjects. Find one that works best for you. That is the best mantra to follow. Thanks, David Sparkman Application Development Team Leader Weberize, Inc. http://www.weberize.com -Original Message- From: war ape [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2000 8:22 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: Fusebox Whats the whole point of Fusebox? I don't see how it makes an application any less proprietary i i know it helps modularize an application for reuse, but how does it help make the application more understandable to other programmers? Most don't use fusebox, so right there its been made harder also i think it adds a dense layer of complexity to an application, basically adding another 10-15% work to the appllication. I don't see that it does much that could not be achieved with a standardized naming convention. Sorry if i seem the philistine, but my mantra has always been simplicity, simplicity is what makes an application more accessible to later programmers ~~ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
Re: Fusebox
FuseBox is a methodology that is open to the public, thus adopted by others. Some people might like it, others won't. What you can do is designyour own methodology... maybe picking up the best aspects from different programming methodologies you've encountered in the past. Programming methods are very subjective as there is no true 'right' and only way. At 02:22 PM 12/20/00 +, war ape you wrote: >Whats the whole point of Fusebox? >I don't see how it makes an application any less proprietary >i i know it helps modularize an application for reuse, but how does it help >make the application more understandable to other programmers? >Most don't use fusebox, so right there its been made harder >also i think it adds a dense layer of complexity to an application, >basically adding another 10-15% work to the appllication. >I don't see that it does much that could not be achieved with a standardized >naming convention. >Sorry if i seem the philistine, but my mantra has always been simplicity, >simplicity is what makes an application more accessible to later programmers > ~~ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
RE: Fusebox
In my days at university, we were told: "All sufficiently powerful programming languages are equivalent". My version goes like this: "All sufficiently powerful programming methodologies are equivalent". In other words, it's not ENORMOUSLY important which methodology you use. It's mostly just important that you DO use one. FuseBox seems to fit the bill. It is sufficiently powerful (ie anything you can do in CF, you can do in FuseBox), and it doesn't put up many obstacles in the developer's way. Even more important than that, it seems to be the FIRST openly documented, freely available, no-charge, methodology/architecture/philosophy described for the CF context. I'm sure it's not perfect, but I AM sure that if we ALL use it, then we'll ALL be much better off. If I go off and develop my own fantastic methods, then i'm ADDING to the CONFUSION. Much better that I throw my lot in with FuseBox, and work on improving it for everybody. Surely one universally-used methodology, even though imperfect, is better than ten thousand superior methodologies. bye now, Lee (Bjork) Borkman http://bjork.net ColdFusion Tags by Bjork IMPORTANT NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachment to it is intended only to be read or used by the named addressee. It is confidential and may contain legally privileged information. No confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by any mistaken transmission to you. If you receive this e-mail in error, please immediately delete it from your system and notify the sender. You must not disclose, copy or use any part of this e-mail if you are not the intended recipient. The RTA is not responsible for any unauthorised alterations to this e-mail or attachment to it. ~~ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
Re: Fusebox
"Warrick, Mark" wrote: > The fusebox methodology has many benefits, and I really don't think it adds any time >to the development cycle. In fact, I'm pretty sure it helps speed up development. > Well, that has nothing to do w/ Fusebox. Any programming methodology will offer this benefit. The key is having one in place and sticking to it. > > One of the greatest advantages of the style is that you can modularize you code, and >in doing so, you can assign pieces of your application to various developers without >worrying about them stepping on each other's toes. > See above. This is not unique to fusebox. > > Another advantage is that certain companies (such as mine) require it. So if you >don't do it, you're not going to get a job with certain companies. > If you are not a consultant, that is complete hogwash, I think. Especially with today's job market. Fusebox (or whatever methodology the company uses) should be more than willing to train on the methodology. If you already know the language (What company doesn't have enough trouble finding people who know the language?), learning the coding practices should be easy enough. I did one job, where the first thing they did was sit me down and outline the coding practices. It took about a half hour sitting down with the lead developer. I took notes, and then followed them. No problems. > > Lastly, it's very simple to follow the programming flow of a fusebox app. When >something goes wrong, you simply search for the fuseaction in the index file and then >you'll see right away all the templates in a single handy block that could be >involved with the problem. > As I said previously, any methodology worth its salt should offer this. If I don't know fusebox, then your app isn't going to be any easier to follow than some other unknown methodology. (It probably will be easier to follow than random coding, though) -- Jeff Houser | mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] AIM: Reboog711 | ICQ: 5246969 | Phone: 860-229-2781 -- Instant Cold Fusion 4.5 | ISBN: 0-07-213238-8 Due out 3rd Quarter 2001 -- DotComIt, LLC database driven web data using ColdFusion, Lotus Notes/Domino -- Half of the Alternative Folk Acoustic Duo called Far Cry Fly http://www.farcryfly.com | http://www.mp3.com/FarCryFly -- Promise me no dead end streets, and I'll guarantee we'll have a road ~~ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
Re: Fusebox
One of the important things about FuseBox that I haven't seen mentioned yet is how easy it is to design your applications using FuseBox. Erki ~~ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
RE: Fusebox
It's certainly true that there is no one, true methodology -- Fusebox or anything else. That said, one of the main reasons for a methodology (at least from my standpoint) is to make team development easier. A proprietary methodology has an inherent limitation--every new team member has a learning curve to go through. Unless the proprietary methodology has overwhelming advantages, I think it makes much more sense to pick a popular one (CFObjects, Fusebox, etc.) and work within that framework. Hal Helms == See www.ColdFusionTraining.com for info on "Best Practices with ColdFusion & Fusebox" training, Jan 22-25 == -Original Message- From: Michael She [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2000 11:08 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: Fusebox FuseBox is a methodology that is open to the public, thus adopted by others. Some people might like it, others won't. What you can do is designyour own methodology... maybe picking up the best aspects from different programming methodologies you've encountered in the past. Programming methods are very subjective as there is no true 'right' and only way. At 02:22 PM 12/20/00 +, war ape you wrote: >Whats the whole point of Fusebox? >I don't see how it makes an application any less proprietary >i i know it helps modularize an application for reuse, but how does it help >make the application more understandable to other programmers? >Most don't use fusebox, so right there its been made harder >also i think it adds a dense layer of complexity to an application, >basically adding another 10-15% work to the appllication. >I don't see that it does much that could not be achieved with a standardized >naming convention. >Sorry if i seem the philistine, but my mantra has always been simplicity, >simplicity is what makes an application more accessible to later programmers > ~~ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
RE: Fusebox
Jeff, You keep on going on about other methodologies. Which particular other methodologies using CF are publicly available? You keep mentioning all these other methodologies, but can we at least compare them to Fusebox? Fusebox is probably one of the best methodologies (if not the only public methodology) available for a ColdFusion developer. The book also covers a number of fundemental design elements that any CF'er should understand. EVEN if they don't do Fusebox. Adam -Original Message- From: Jeffry Houser [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2000 1:47 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: Fusebox "Warrick, Mark" wrote: > The fusebox methodology has many benefits, and I really don't think it adds any time to the development cycle. In fact, I'm pretty sure it helps speed up development. > Well, that has nothing to do w/ Fusebox. Any programming methodology will offer this benefit. The key is having one in place and sticking to it. > > One of the greatest advantages of the style is that you can modularize you code, and in doing so, you can assign pieces of your application to various developers without worrying about them stepping on each other's toes. > See above. This is not unique to fusebox. > > Another advantage is that certain companies (such as mine) require it. So if you don't do it, you're not going to get a job with certain companies. > If you are not a consultant, that is complete hogwash, I think. Especially with today's job market. Fusebox (or whatever methodology the company uses) should be more than willing to train on the methodology. If you already know the language (What company doesn't have enough trouble finding people who know the language?), learning the coding practices should be easy enough. I did one job, where the first thing they did was sit me down and outline the coding practices. It took about a half hour sitting down with the lead developer. I took notes, and then followed them. No problems. > > Lastly, it's very simple to follow the programming flow of a fusebox app. When something goes wrong, you simply search for the fuseaction in the index file and then you'll see right away all the templates in a single handy block that could be involved with the problem. > As I said previously, any methodology worth its salt should offer this. If I don't know fusebox, then your app isn't going to be any easier to follow than some other unknown methodology. (It probably will be easier to follow than random coding, though) -- Jeff Houser | mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] AIM: Reboog711 | ICQ: 5246969 | Phone: 860-229-2781 -- Instant Cold Fusion 4.5 | ISBN: 0-07-213238-8 Due out 3rd Quarter 2001 -- DotComIt, LLC database driven web data using ColdFusion, Lotus Notes/Domino -- Half of the Alternative Folk Acoustic Duo called Far Cry Fly http://www.farcryfly.com | http://www.mp3.com/FarCryFly -- Promise me no dead end streets, and I'll guarantee we'll have a road ~~ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
RE: Fusebox
Although Fusebox is probably the most popular (and best documented) publicly available methodology for coding ColdFusion, there are several other (arguably better) methods available. Two of these include CFObjects (http://www.cfobjects.com/) and SmartObjects (http://www.smart-objects.com/). There are also some other methodologies which very in degree of structure: Black Box (http://www.black-box.org/) relies on a single tag to tie together disparate ColdFusion templates. On the other side of the spectrum, Switch_Box (http://www.switch-box.org/) is a fairly complex methodology that requires setting up special extensions on the ColdFusion Server. Some developers, who feel constrained working in a methodology, prefer working in a framework. A couple examples of ColdFusion frameworks include iiFramework (http://www.iiframework.com/) and even Spectra (http://www.allaire.com). However, both of these are commercial software. Actually, I can't think of a public or open source ColdFusion framework off the top of my head...something for the community to think about at any rate. Benjamin S. Rogers Web Developer, c4.net voice: (508) 240-0051 fax: (508) 240-0057 -Original Message- From: Adam Reynolds [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 22, 2000 4:47 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Fusebox Jeff, You keep on going on about other methodologies. Which particular other methodologies using CF are publicly available? You keep mentioning all these other methodologies, but can we at least compare them to Fusebox? Fusebox is probably one of the best methodologies (if not the only public methodology) available for a ColdFusion developer. The book also covers a number of fundemental design elements that any CF'er should understand. EVEN if they don't do Fusebox. Adam -Original Message- From: Jeffry Houser [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2000 1:47 PM To: CF-Talk Subject:Re: Fusebox "Warrick, Mark" wrote: > The fusebox methodology has many benefits, and I really don't think it adds any time to the development cycle. In fact, I'm pretty sure it helps speed up development. > Well, that has nothing to do w/ Fusebox. Any programming methodology will offer this benefit. The key is having one in place and sticking to it. > > One of the greatest advantages of the style is that you can modularize you code, and in doing so, you can assign pieces of your application to various developers without worrying about them stepping on each other's toes. > See above. This is not unique to fusebox. > > Another advantage is that certain companies (such as mine) require it. So if you don't do it, you're not going to get a job with certain companies. > If you are not a consultant, that is complete hogwash, I think. Especially with today's job market. Fusebox (or whatever methodology the company uses) should be more than willing to train on the methodology. If you already know the language (What company doesn't have enough trouble finding people who know the language?), learning the coding practices should be easy enough. I did one job, where the first thing they did was sit me down and outline the coding practices. It took about a half hour sitting down with the lead developer. I took notes, and then followed them. No problems. > > Lastly, it's very simple to follow the programming flow of a fusebox app. When something goes wrong, you simply search for the fuseaction in the index file and then you'll see right away all the templates in a single handy block that could be involved with the problem. > As I said previously, any methodology worth its salt should offer this. If I don't know fusebox, then your app isn't going to be any easier to follow than some other unknown methodology. (It probably will be easier to follow than random coding, though) -- Jeff Houser | mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] AIM: Reboog711 | ICQ: 5246969 | Phone: 860-229-2781 -- Instant Cold Fusion 4.5 | ISBN: 0-07-213238-8 Due out 3rd Quarter 2001 -- DotComIt, LLC database driven web data using ColdFusion, Lotus Notes/Domino -- Half of the Alternative Folk Acoustic Duo called Far Cry Fly http://www.farcryfly.com | http://www.mp3.com/FarCryFly -- Promise me no dead end streets, and I'll guarantee we'll have a road ~~ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
Re: Fusebox
Adam Reynolds wrote: > Jeff, > You keep on going on about other methodologies. Which particular other > methodologies using CF are publicly available? You keep mentioning all > these other methodologies, but can we at least compare them to Fusebox? I believe you make a good point, in saying that Fusebox is a publicly defined methodology. But, I believe you missed my point. No single methodology will fulfill every need. Fusebox is not the only methodology I have come across. Once you weed out the 'programming at random' people, You can probably find a different methodology for every programmer. For other publicly available methodologies: www.black-box.org www.switch-box.org Also I was told that 'www.litter-box.org' was going to define a methodology, but the site seems blank, or broken, at the moment. -- Jeff Houser | mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] AIM: Reboog711 | ICQ: 5246969 | Phone: 860-229-2781 -- Instant Cold Fusion 4.5 | ISBN: 0-07-213238-8 Due out 3rd Quarter 2001 -- DotComIt, LLC database driven web data using ColdFusion, Lotus Notes/Domino -- Half of the Alternative Folk Acoustic Duo called Far Cry Fly http://www.farcryfly.com | http://www.mp3.com/FarCryFly -- Promise me no dead end streets, and I'll guarantee we'll have a road ~~ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
RE: Fusebox
Several people have thrown out the term 'CFObjects.' But if you good read up on CFObjects it is not really fleshed out and certainly not thoroughly tested by different programmers on different types of projects. It is just a good starting point to make an object oriented methodology out of Cold Fusion programming. What I like about Fusebox is it is the first methodology I have seen that specifically addresses the idiosyncrasies of web programming. The fact that it is geared for Cold Fusion is just a plus. Web programming is not the same as procedural programming, and although close it is not exactly the same as event-driven programming either. Does anyone know of any more 'researched' web programming methodologies? At 09:47 AM 12/22/00 +, Adam Reynolds wrote: >Jeff, >You keep on going on about other methodologies. Which particular other >methodologies using CF are publicly available? You keep mentioning all >these other methodologies, but can we at least compare them to Fusebox? > >Fusebox is probably one of the best methodologies (if not the only public >methodology) available for a ColdFusion developer. The book also covers a >number of fundemental design elements that any CF'er should understand. >EVEN if they don't do Fusebox. > >Adam > > >-Original Message- >From: Jeffry Houser [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2000 1:47 PM >To: CF-Talk >Subject:Re: Fusebox > > > >"Warrick, Mark" wrote: > >> The fusebox methodology has many benefits, and I really don't think it >adds any time to the development cycle. In fact, I'm pretty sure it helps >speed up development. >> > > Well, that has nothing to do w/ Fusebox. Any programming methodology >will offer >this benefit. The key is having one in place and sticking to it. > > >> >> One of the greatest advantages of the style is that you can modularize >you code, and in doing so, you can assign pieces of your application to >various developers without worrying about them stepping on each other's >toes. >> > > See above. This is not unique to fusebox. > > > >> >> Another advantage is that certain companies (such as mine) require it. >So if you don't do it, you're not going to get a job with certain >companies. >> > > If you are not a consultant, that is complete hogwash, I think. >Especially with today's job market. Fusebox (or whatever methodology the >company uses) should be more than >willing to train on the methodology. If you already know the language >(What company >doesn't have enough trouble finding people who know the language?), >learning the >coding practices should be easy enough. > > I did one job, where the first thing they did was sit me down and >outline the >coding practices. It took about a half hour sitting down with the lead >developer. >I took notes, and then followed them. No problems. > > >> >> Lastly, it's very simple to follow the programming flow of a fusebox >app. When something goes wrong, you simply search for the fuseaction in >the index file and then you'll see right away all the templates in a >single handy block that could be involved with the problem. >> > > As I said previously, any methodology worth its salt should offer this. >If >I don't know fusebox, then your app isn't going to be any easier to follow >than >some other unknown methodology. (It probably will be easier to follow than >random coding, though) > >-- >Jeff Houser | mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >AIM: Reboog711 | ICQ: 5246969 | Phone: 860-229-2781 >-- >Instant Cold Fusion 4.5 | ISBN: 0-07-213238-8 >Due out 3rd Quarter 2001 >-- >DotComIt, LLC >database driven web data using ColdFusion, Lotus Notes/Domino >-- >Half of the Alternative Folk Acoustic Duo called Far Cry Fly >http://www.farcryfly.com | http://www.mp3.com/FarCryFly >-- >Promise me no dead end streets, and I'll guarantee we'll have a road > ~~ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
Re: Fusebox
Just to insert my two cents worth, I inherited a site that I have now see was supposed to follow the fusebox methodology. It has been a nightmare trying to figure out what they were trying to do. I may be wrong but it seems to me that too have an include on the index page point to an action file that simply points to a display file was not the proper implementation. Just from looking the fusebox docs over once I see that what I would think is the proper implementation of this would be more like this 1)an include on the index page that points to an action file that does and action 2)an include on the index page below the action file that points to a query file 3)an include on the index page below the query file that points to a display file that may show the results returned based on the action and query file. Am I correct in this? I will admit that the methodology is a good thing to have to structure code and make it easier for a new programmer to come in and see what is going on. However in this case the documentation was nearly nonexistant and the fact that some of the includes stayed within the directory structure and others did not made this application extremely hard to follow. I am not the only programmer here that felt the same way about this application. I am not saying that the methodology is wrong...quite the contrary it seems to be simple and expandable. I am saying that no matter what methodolgy someone uses, the results you get will depend on how well you understand what the methodology is doing, how well you document your work and how closely you follow the specs of the methodology. Thanks Frederic ~~ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
RE: Fusebox
I can sympathize with this. Our company bought a Forums package for our site. Written entirely in fusebox, its a great package and we've never had any problems, but when it came time to go through everything and familiarize our developers with the code, it was an exercise in futility. It seems that no page actually has any native code in it, the whole thing is made up of cfincludes, referencing other templates. IT just seems a little bit on the ridiculous side to write 300 odd 1k templates and cfinclude them in every single page. It was also a nightmare when we had to inventory all our code and queries and such. I wasted about a week trying to document everything before I finally gave up. -Original Message- From: C Frederic Valone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 22, 2000 11:12 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: Fusebox Just to insert my two cents worth, I inherited a site that I have now see was supposed to follow the fusebox methodology. It has been a nightmare trying to figure out what they were trying to do. I may be wrong but it seems to me that too have an include on the index page point to an action file that simply points to a display file was not the proper implementation. Just from looking the fusebox docs over once I see that what I would think is the proper implementation of this would be more like this 1)an include on the index page that points to an action file that does and action 2)an include on the index page below the action file that points to a query file 3)an include on the index page below the query file that points to a display file that may show the results returned based on the action and query file. Am I correct in this? I will admit that the methodology is a good thing to have to structure code and make it easier for a new programmer to come in and see what is going on. However in this case the documentation was nearly nonexistant and the fact that some of the includes stayed within the directory structure and others did not made this application extremely hard to follow. I am not the only programmer here that felt the same way about this application. I am not saying that the methodology is wrong...quite the contrary it seems to be simple and expandable. I am saying that no matter what methodolgy someone uses, the results you get will depend on how well you understand what the methodology is doing, how well you document your work and how closely you follow the specs of the methodology. Thanks Frederic ~~ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
RE: Fusebox
Just to play the devil's advocate here, a system without technical documentation is a poorly written system to begin with. It doesn't matter at that point HOW it was written. ---mark -- Mark Warrick Phone: (714) 547-5386 Efax.com Fax: (801) 730-7289 Personal Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Personal URL: http://www.warrick.net Business Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Business URL: http://www.fusioneers.com ICQ: 346566 -- > -Original Message- > From: Chris Martin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, December 22, 2000 8:36 AM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: RE: Fusebox > > > I can sympathize with this. Our company bought a Forums package for our > site. Written entirely in fusebox, its a great package and we've > never had > any problems, but when it came time to go through everything and > familiarize > our developers with the code, it was an exercise in futility. It > seems that > no page actually has any native code in it, the whole thing is made up of > cfincludes, referencing other templates. IT just seems a little > bit on the > ridiculous side to write 300 odd 1k templates and cfinclude them in every > single page. It was also a nightmare when we had to inventory > all our code > and queries and such. I wasted about a week trying to document everything > before I finally gave up. > > -Original Message- > From: C Frederic Valone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, December 22, 2000 11:12 AM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: Re: Fusebox > > > Just to insert my two cents worth, > > I inherited a site that I have now see was supposed to follow the fusebox > methodology. It has been a nightmare trying to figure out what they were > trying to do. > > I may be wrong but it seems to me that too have an include on the > index page > point to an action file that simply points to a display file was not the > proper implementation. > > Just from looking the fusebox docs over once I see that what I would think > is the proper implementation of this would be more like this > 1)an include on the index page that points to an action file that does and > action > 2)an include on the index page below the action file that points > to a query > file > 3)an include on the index page below the query file that points > to a display > file that may show the results returned based on the action and > query file. > Am I correct in this? > > I will admit that the methodology is a good thing to have to > structure code > and make it easier for a new programmer to come in and see what > is going on. > However in this case the documentation was nearly nonexistant and the fact > that some of the includes stayed within the directory structure and others > did not made this application > extremely hard to follow. > > I am not the only programmer here that felt the same way about this > application. I am not saying that the methodology is wrong...quite the > contrary it seems to be simple and expandable. I am saying that no matter > what methodolgy someone uses, the results you get will depend on how well > you understand what the methodology is doing, how > well you document your work and how closely you follow the specs of the > methodology. > > Thanks > Frederic > ~~ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
Re: Fusebox
I agree with Hal. The major problem with CFObjects is that you have to tackle the additiona learning curve of an OO methodology, *and* the documentation/sample-apps leave a lot to be desired for a person new to the methodology. If CFO only had a like Hal hawking it, it'd get a much wider notice :) - Original Message - From: "Hal Helms" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, December 22, 2000 5:00 PM Subject: RE: Fusebox > I have to disagree regarding CFObjects, a framework written by my friend, > Ralph Fiol. CFObjects is completely fleshed out and has been tested by many > programmers. In fact, version 2 is in beta form right now. While I prefer > Fusebox as a methodology, I don't think it's fair to say CFObjects isn't > there yet. Just my opinion... > > Hal Helms > == See www.ColdFusionTraining.com for info on "Best Practices with > ColdFusion & Fusebox" training, Jan 22-25 == > > > -Original Message- > From: Peter Theobald [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, December 22, 2000 9:53 AM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: RE: Fusebox > > > Several people have thrown out the term 'CFObjects.' But if you good read > up on CFObjects it is not really fleshed out and certainly not thoroughly > tested by different programmers on different types of projects. It is just a > good starting point to make an object oriented methodology out of Cold > Fusion programming. > > What I like about Fusebox is it is the first methodology I have seen that > specifically addresses the idiosyncrasies of web programming. The fact that > it is geared for Cold Fusion is just a plus. Web programming is not the same > as procedural programming, and although close it is not exactly the same as > event-driven programming either. > Does anyone know of any more 'researched' web programming methodologies? > > > At 09:47 AM 12/22/00 +, Adam Reynolds wrote: > >Jeff, > >You keep on going on about other methodologies. Which particular other > >methodologies using CF are publicly available? You keep mentioning all > >these other methodologies, but can we at least compare them to Fusebox? > > > >Fusebox is probably one of the best methodologies (if not the only public > >methodology) available for a ColdFusion developer. The book also covers a > >number of fundemental design elements that any CF'er should understand. > >EVEN if they don't do Fusebox. > > > >Adam > > > > > >-Original Message- > >From: Jeffry Houser [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > >Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2000 1:47 PM > >To: CF-Talk > >Subject:Re: Fusebox > > > > > > > >"Warrick, Mark" wrote: > > > >> The fusebox methodology has many benefits, and I really don't think it > >adds any time to the development cycle. In fact, I'm pretty sure it helps > >speed up development. > >> > > > > Well, that has nothing to do w/ Fusebox. Any programming methodology > >will offer > >this benefit. The key is having one in place and sticking to it. > > > > > >> > >> One of the greatest advantages of the style is that you can modularize > >you code, and in doing so, you can assign pieces of your application to > >various developers without worrying about them stepping on each other's > >toes. > >> > > > > See above. This is not unique to fusebox. > > > > > > > >> > >> Another advantage is that certain companies (such as mine) require it. > >So if you don't do it, you're not going to get a job with certain > >companies. > >> > > > > If you are not a consultant, that is complete hogwash, I think. > >Especially with today's job market. Fusebox (or whatever methodology the > >company uses) should be more than > >willing to train on the methodology. If you already know the language > >(What company > >doesn't have enough trouble finding people who know the language?), > >learning the > >coding practices should be easy enough. > > > > I did one job, where the first thing they did was sit me down and > >outline the > >coding practices. It took about a half hour sitting down with the lead > >developer. > >I took notes, and then followed them. No problems. > > > > > >> > >> Lastly, it's very simple to follow the programming flow of a fusebox > >app. When something goes wrong, you simply search for the fuseaction in > >the index file and t
RE: Fusebox
On 12/22/00, Hal Helms penned: >I have to disagree regarding CFObjects, a framework written by my friend, >Ralph Fiol. CFObjects is completely fleshed out and has been tested by many >programmers. In fact, version 2 is in beta form right now. While I prefer >Fusebox as a methodology, I don't think it's fair to say CFObjects isn't >there yet. Just my opinion... How's Ralph doing? He was my FastTrack teacher. :-D -- Bud Schneehagen - Tropical Web Creations _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ ColdFusion Solutions / eCommerce Development [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.twcreations.com/ 954.721.3452 ~~ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
RE: Fusebox
Sounds like I spoke too quickly. I will have to give CFObjects a closer look. At 05:00 PM 12/22/00 -0500, Hal Helms wrote: >I have to disagree regarding CFObjects, a framework written by my friend, >Ralph Fiol. CFObjects is completely fleshed out and has been tested by many >programmers. In fact, version 2 is in beta form right now. While I prefer >Fusebox as a methodology, I don't think it's fair to say CFObjects isn't >there yet. Just my opinion... > >Hal Helms >== See www.ColdFusionTraining.com for info on "Best Practices with >ColdFusion & Fusebox" training, Jan 22-25 == > > >-Original Message- >From: Peter Theobald [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >Sent: Friday, December 22, 2000 9:53 AM >To: CF-Talk >Subject: RE: Fusebox > > >Several people have thrown out the term 'CFObjects.' But if you good read >up on CFObjects it is not really fleshed out and certainly not thoroughly >tested by different programmers on different types of projects. It is just a >good starting point to make an object oriented methodology out of Cold >Fusion programming. > >What I like about Fusebox is it is the first methodology I have seen that >specifically addresses the idiosyncrasies of web programming. The fact that >it is geared for Cold Fusion is just a plus. Web programming is not the same >as procedural programming, and although close it is not exactly the same as >event-driven programming either. >Does anyone know of any more 'researched' web programming methodologies? > > >At 09:47 AM 12/22/00 +, Adam Reynolds wrote: >>Jeff, >>You keep on going on about other methodologies. Which particular other >>methodologies using CF are publicly available? You keep mentioning all >>these other methodologies, but can we at least compare them to Fusebox? >> >>Fusebox is probably one of the best methodologies (if not the only public >>methodology) available for a ColdFusion developer. The book also covers a >>number of fundemental design elements that any CF'er should understand. >>EVEN if they don't do Fusebox. >> >>Adam >> >> >>-Original Message- >>From: Jeffry Houser [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >>Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2000 1:47 PM >>To: CF-Talk >>Subject:Re: Fusebox >> >> >> >>"Warrick, Mark" wrote: >> >>> The fusebox methodology has many benefits, and I really don't think it >>adds any time to the development cycle. In fact, I'm pretty sure it helps >>speed up development. >>> >> >> Well, that has nothing to do w/ Fusebox. Any programming methodology >>will offer >>this benefit. The key is having one in place and sticking to it. >> >> >>> >>> One of the greatest advantages of the style is that you can modularize >>you code, and in doing so, you can assign pieces of your application to >>various developers without worrying about them stepping on each other's >>toes. >>> >> >> See above. This is not unique to fusebox. >> >> >> >>> >>> Another advantage is that certain companies (such as mine) require it. >>So if you don't do it, you're not going to get a job with certain >>companies. >>> >> >> If you are not a consultant, that is complete hogwash, I think. >>Especially with today's job market. Fusebox (or whatever methodology the >>company uses) should be more than >>willing to train on the methodology. If you already know the language >>(What company >>doesn't have enough trouble finding people who know the language?), >>learning the >>coding practices should be easy enough. >> >> I did one job, where the first thing they did was sit me down and >>outline the >>coding practices. It took about a half hour sitting down with the lead >>developer. >>I took notes, and then followed them. No problems. >> >> >>> >>> Lastly, it's very simple to follow the programming flow of a fusebox >>app. When something goes wrong, you simply search for the fuseaction in >>the index file and then you'll see right away all the templates in a >>single handy block that could be involved with the problem. >>> >> >> As I said previously, any methodology worth its salt should offer this. >>If >>I don't know fusebox, then your app isn't going to be any easier to follow >>than >>some other unknown methodology. (It probably will be easier to follow than >>random coding, though) &g
RE: Fusebox
> I agree with Hal. The major problem with CFObjects is that you > have to tackle the additiona learning curve of an OO methodology, > *and* the documentation/sample-apps leave a lot to be desired for > a person new to the methodology. If CFO only had a like Hal hawking > it, it'd get a much wider notice :) I'd argue that the major problem with CFObjects is something completely different. I don't think tacking object-orientation onto CF - which is pretty much a batch-processing environment - is such a great idea. If you want to write OO code, you'd be better served with an OO language. Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ voice: (202) 797-5496 fax: (202) 797-5444 ~~ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
RE: Fusebox
Yes, there's definitely that argument, Dave -- and it's a good one. Someone once posted a question on the CFObjects forum, "If you're going to do OO, what not just do Java?" I'm still waiting to hear a good answer. I think CFObjects can be a good bridge for folks moving from CFML to a true OO language such as Ruby or Java. Hal Helms == See www.ColdFusionTraining.com for info on "Best Practices with ColdFusion & Fusebox" training, Jan 22-25 == -Original Message- From: Dave Watts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Sunday, December 24, 2000 5:06 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Fusebox > I agree with Hal. The major problem with CFObjects is that you > have to tackle the additiona learning curve of an OO methodology, > *and* the documentation/sample-apps leave a lot to be desired for > a person new to the methodology. If CFO only had a like Hal hawking > it, it'd get a much wider notice :) I'd argue that the major problem with CFObjects is something completely different. I don't think tacking object-orientation onto CF - which is pretty much a batch-processing environment - is such a great idea. If you want to write OO code, you'd be better served with an OO language. Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ voice: (202) 797-5496 fax: (202) 797-5444 ~~ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
RE: Fusebox
At 05:39 PM 12/24/00 -0500, Hal Helms you wrote: >Yes, there's definitely that argument, Dave -- and it's a good one. Someone >once posted a question on the CFObjects forum, "If you're going to do OO, >what not just do Java?" I'm still waiting to hear a good answer. > >I think CFObjects can be a good bridge for folks moving from CFML to a true >OO language such as Ruby or Java. Out of curiousity, is JSP OO? -- Michael She I m a g i n e C o m m u n i c a t i o n s Company E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Personal E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ UIN: #243466 Personal Homepage: http://www.michaelshe.com (Under Construction) Imagine Communications: http://www.imagineer.net PGP Fingerprint: 9A24 1DA9 39B8 0A0C C5ED 6E5D 45E9 075A 51CD 66A1 ~~ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
