No dork, I was responding to your weird remark:
What does that say about FuseBox?
I don't understand nor do I wish to understand your goofy
situation and why you have to work so hard to upload files. I
think you may have made a logistical error or 2 designing
this cluster-f*** of a site, but
He is obviouslay a twat Phil. ;-) step back and let his brain cell fight
with his ego for who gets more oxygen.
-Original Message-
From: Philip Arnold [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 21 July 2003 10:42
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Cons to Fusebox
No dork, I was responding to your
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Cons to Fusebox
He is obviouslay a twat Phil. ;-) step back and let his brain cell
fight with his ego for who gets more oxygen.
-Original Message-
From: Philip Arnold [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 21 July 2003 10:42
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Cons
On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 17:39:19 -0400, in cf-talk you wrote:
Out of curiosity, Jamie, is this typical of all of your projects or just
this particular one?
This is the first CF project that I foresaw being complicated by
multiple developers. However, I have the feeling that I'll be inclined
to use
Mosh Teitelbaum wrote:
Are the changes made by one person or three? If
three, have you found it difficult to coordinate everyone's time
and effort?
Jamie Jackson wrote:
I can't think a time when this has been an issue (yet). If necessary,
I could always go into their fuse and make the mod
Subject: RE: Cons to Fusebox
Mosh Teitelbaum wrote:
Are the changes made by one person or three? If
three, have you found it difficult to coordinate everyone's time
and effort?
Jamie Jackson wrote:
I can't think a time when this has been an issue (yet). If necessary,
I could always go
]
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2003 11:10 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Cons to Fusebox
We too work in such a manneri.e. multiple developers on the same fuses
etc, the reason we seem to have it working is that we have a very
strict set
of code guidelines which outline : style, variable names etc
PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2003 11:10 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Cons to Fusebox
We too work in such a manneri.e. multiple developers on the same fuses
etc, the reason we seem to have it working is that we have a very
strict set
of code guidelines which outline : style, variable
Teitelbaum
evoch, LLC
Tel: (301) 942-5378
Fax: (301) 933-3651
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
WWW: http://www.evoch.com/
-Original Message-
From: Robertson-Ravo, Neil (RX)
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2003 11:43 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Cons to Fusebox
No-one here
Brain,
I appreciate that, however, I've already had experience with Fusebox, and
decided it wasn't worth the additional overhead of complexity 'for me' ;)
- Calvin
- Original Message -
From: Brian Kotek [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 2:54 PM
-Talk
Subject: Re: Cons to Fusebox
Exactly so...
Just an odd opinion. ColdFusion seems to shield the developer from the
more
arcane phraseology and syntax used by lower level languages, and Fusebox
seems to introduce the arcane right back on top of it...
- Calvin
- Original Message
Oh, in that case fusebox sucks. I'm not going to use it
anymore! You're the smartest guy ever!
Hey, you said
I've never heard a developer who's actually architected
and developed a project with FB say I wish I hadn't used FB
I told you that I had a situation where I HAD said that I wished I
:08 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Cons to Fusebox
Oh, in that case fusebox sucks. I'm not going to use it anymore!
You're the smartest guy ever!
Hey, you said
I've never heard a developer who's actually architected
and developed a project with FB say I wish I hadn't used FB
I told you that I
I tried to build an app on FB2, then another client wanted a site with
exactly the same technology - this meant duplicating the files over the
? 2 folders - whenever I did updates, I had to upload to 2 locations
Philip,
I'm no FB evangelist... people should use whatever works for them, IMO.
This is almost rediculous. I've seen complete newbies with little or no
CF experience pick up fusebox in a week.
There's nothing ridiculous about the FB learning curve... FB makes instant
sense to many people, and is completely impenetrable to many others. Anyone
who has watched the various FB
The anonymous GL said,
No dork, I was responding to snip
If you can't be a grownup here then get out. Around here that attitude
just discounts your opinion as noise.
Matt Robertson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MSB Designs, Inc. http://mysecretbase.com
: Sunday, July 20, 2003 7:25 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Cons to Fusebox
You're just further supporting my theory about nay-sayers not
understanding something about using fusebox.
~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists
that it's not practical to invest hundreds of thousands
of dollars into disposal software. It all comes out in the wash.
-Original Message-
From: Michael Wilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2003 12:24 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Cons to Fusebox
...and you further support
Your statements assume the apps in multiple locations all belong to one
client. If I had 3 clients who each required a shopping cart app (for
instance), I doubt very much if they would want their system to be even
partially located on server's outside their domains. In this case (which is
common
Subject: RE: Cons to Fusebox
Your statements assume the apps in multiple locations all belong to one
client. If I had 3 clients who each required a shopping cart app (for
instance), I doubt very much if they would want their system to be even
partially located on server's outside their domains
Brian Kotek wrote:
I mean, I could say the best methodology is the
build the best application methodology. There are no
repeatable steps to this methodology, no way to document it in a
way that someone else can use. But when you use it and you do it
right, whooeee the results are amazing!
Mosh Teitelbaum wrote:
4) Fusebox does have a learning curve (IMO, a pretty steep one if you want
to
truly and properly use all that FB offers) but once learned, you're in
pretty good company (until the next release and then there usually
seems to
be another learning curve).
GL drew
Subject: RE: Cons to Fusebox
Brian:
I appreciate all the effort you've been pouring into this thread. That
said, allow *me* to back up a bit 8^).
I am familiar with FB3 and have had opportunities to use it and its
various features. I've also spent some (but not enough) time going over
FB4 and I'm
ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to
investigation.
Greg
-Original Message-
From: Michael Wilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 11:55 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Cons to Fusebox
Hi,
I'm sorry that you feel this is
personally directed at you.
I
This debate has been informative, but not really about pros
or cons of Fusebox. I didn't realize there were so many
developers out there that dislike a proven tool because they
don't have the time/energy to understand it. I've never heard
a developer who's actually architected and developed a
Oh, in that case fusebox sucks. I'm not going to use it anymore! You're
the smartest guy ever!
Greg
-Original Message-
From: Philip Arnold [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2003 11:46 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Cons to Fusebox
This debate has been informative
On Thursday, Jul 17, 2003, at 21:41 US/Pacific, Mosh Teitelbaum wrote:
So first, as has been stated to death in this thread, there are tons of
different ways of accomplishing the same thing. I recognize this,
agree
with it, respect it. What I'm really asking is, why is *this* a
better way
Trade offs. Everything is a trade off. Sometimes the quick,
unstructured 'hack' is the right solution...
This for me (being a small shop) is why I've extensively adopted a
framework like Fusebox. Most of my projects are not going to become an
Amazon.com anytime soon, while this doesn't mean
2) Static sounding URLs are easier to remember. They
shouldn't be, but they are. Most likely, this is because
people are used to seeing a URL like /Products/SuperApp.cfm
instead of index.cfm?go=Products.SuperApp.
OK, I'll buy that. But that's why Macromedia (for example) has
go
XFA?
- Original Message -
From: Mosh Teitelbaum [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 1:39 AM
Subject: RE: Cons to Fusebox
snip
Yes, but the earlier comments I was responding to were suggesting that
Fusebox allows individual developers to know
Mosh Teitelbaum wrote:
Concerning the points you mentioned, other than point (a), all of this
can be accomplished via constructive use of Application.cfm and
OnRequestEnd.cfm.
Sean A Corfield wrote:
True, and for some folks, that will be the right choice. In general, I
hear folks saying
X(exit) F(fuse) A(actions)
- Original Message -
From: Calvin Ward [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 1:37 PM
Subject: Re: Cons to Fusebox
XFA?
- Original Message -
From: Mosh Teitelbaum [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: CF-Talk [EMAIL
-Original Message-
From: Dave Watts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 7:23 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: URLs and abstraction (was: RE: Cons to Fusebox)
2) Static sounding URLs are easier to remember. They
shouldn't be, but they are. Most likely, this is because
people
I saw this thread mentioned on Sean's blog and I was thinking about
rejoining this list before reading his blog, so here I am. I'm not
interested in trying to rehash much of the debate since I am late to
this thread, but I feel like it is important to make at least a couple
of points.
I think the most important thing with web applications is that you write
your projects in ways that make it easy for other developers to come in and
start working on it. You can either use an industry standard, or cowboy code
it (http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?CowboyCoding) and hope that you are the only
Hi Mosh,
I was think more in terms of including
the appropriate display file from App.cfm
You can most certainly do this (I used to), but it isn't much different than
building the switch file and may or may not (I can't say for sure) offer the
same level of control you get with Fusebox.
I'd
PROTECTED]
To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 1:38 PM
Subject: Re: Cons to Fusebox
X(exit) F(fuse) A(actions)
- Original Message -
From: Calvin Ward [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 1:37 PM
Subject: Re: Cons to Fusebox
Michael Wilson wrote:
Hi Mosh,
Howdy 8^)
I was think more in terms of including
the appropriate display file from App.cfm
You can most certainly do this (I used to), but it isn't much different
than
building the switch file and may or may not (I can't say for sure) offer
the
same level
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 1:38 PM
Subject: Re: Cons to Fusebox
X(exit) F(fuse) A(actions)
- Original Message -
From: Calvin Ward [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 1:37 PM
Subject: Re: Cons
Brian:
I appreciate all the effort you've been pouring into this thread. That
said, allow *me* to back up a bit 8^).
I am familiar with FB3 and have had opportunities to use it and its various
features. I've also spent some (but not enough) time going over FB4 and I'm
fairly well aware of what
to something like JADE
(IBM) or Barracuda. Compare Fusebox to things like BlackBox or
SmartObjects.
Those are true comparisons I would like to see.
-Original Message-
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 2:00 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Cons to Fusebox
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 3:30 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Cons to Fusebox
Why are you comparing the numbers using a Java Framework to the numbers
using a ColdFusion framework? Isn't that like comparing Appes to Oranges? It
has no meaning. Does this mean that because
there Buddies, I hope it
made your day as well!
Matt thank you!
Birgit Pauli-Haack
PS: hey it's Friday chuckle
Friday, July 18, 2003, 3:29:46 PM, you wrote:
SC From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
SC Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 2:00 PM
SC To: CF-Talk
SC Subject: Re: Cons to Fusebox
SC I saw
Brian Kotek wrote:
Mosh, you are probably the most even-headed person here. The
observations you list here are pretty accurrate. And thanks for
the kudos, I really am just trying to help. I really like
Fusebox, but I do try hard not to be the zealot that some people
think all Fuseboxers
I don't see why comparing different kinds of framework is an issue if
you limit your comparison to specifics that are shared by both. As I
pointed out in my first email, there is no one framework that is best
for all applications, so what the framework is or what it does is
irrelevant to
BlackBox or
SmartObjects.
Those are true comparisons I would like to see.
-Original Message-
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 2:00 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Cons to Fusebox
I saw this thread mentioned on Sean's blog and I was thinking about
On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 16:36:20 -0400, in cf-talk you wrote:
In your experience,
how often do you have one developer working on the form and another working
on the action file?
Answer: As I type.
I know the form, and he knows what he's doing with XML storage and
retrieval. Do I feel like learning
!
Matt thank you!
Birgit Pauli-Haack
PS: hey it's Friday chuckle
Friday, July 18, 2003, 3:29:46 PM, you wrote:
SC From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
SC Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 2:00 PM
SC To: CF-Talk
SC Subject: Re: Cons to Fusebox
SC I saw this thread mentioned on Sean's
Hi,
I don't see why
You never do, Matt. :)
is perfectly acceptable to
compare that following
Had you confined your comparison to ColdFusion frameworks your point would
have much more validity. I do however agree with you that no framework is
best for all situations and that the number
Don't prod Matt. He's really easy to goad :)
- Original Message -
From: Michael Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Friday, July 18, 2003 2:38 pm
Subject: RE: Cons to Fusebox
Hi,
I don't see why
You never do, Matt. :)
is perfectly acceptable to
compare that following
Had
winner in a comparison like that is the most
popular item in it's class.
- Original Message -
From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Friday, July 18, 2003 2:34 pm
Subject: Re: Cons to Fusebox
See my response to another email along similar lines. However, I'd
to
respond to your email
Subject: Re: Cons to Fusebox
I don't see why comparing different kinds of framework is an issue if
you limit your comparison to specifics that are shared by both. As I
pointed out in my first email, there is no one framework that is best
for all applications, so what the framework is or what
: Friday, July 18, 2003 2:00 PM
SC To: CF-Talk
SC Subject: Re: Cons to Fusebox
SC I saw this thread mentioned on Sean's blog and I was thinking about
SC rejoining this list before reading his blog, so here I am. I'm not
SC interested in trying to rehash much of the debate since I am late
to things like BlackBox or
SmartObjects.
Those are true comparisons I would like to see.
-Original Message-
From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 2:00 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Cons to Fusebox
I saw this thread mentioned on Sean's blog and I was thinking
If you wanna have fun,anecdotally or totally ,you should join us on the
CF-Community list.
;-)
Happy Friday!
-Gel
-Original Message-
From: Birgit Pauli-Haack [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
didn't say you did:-)) Anecdotally I am just having fun
B.
versa, but if sheer numbers matter to people than Struts is the
way to go since it is used by a lot more people.
-Original Message-
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 4:24 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Cons to Fusebox
I don't see why comparing
: Friday, July 18, 2003 3:00 pm
Subject: Re: Cons to Fusebox
How about the following quote from this thread for example.
When compared to the alternatives (no structure at all, someone's
personal
best guess at something, or some superior approach that conspicuously
manages to never
:03 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Cons to Fusebox
I could have sworn the other I saw a demo of Struts running on CF and
for that matter I seem to recall Fusebox on J2EE as well. Anyway... on
to the rest of your email.
Why do you want a framework from me that will work better than Fusebox
PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 5:03 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Cons to Fusebox
I could have sworn the other I saw a demo of Struts running on CF and
for that matter I seem to recall Fusebox on J2EE as well. Anyway... on
to the rest of your email.
Why do you want a framework from me
Dave, clearly we disagree on a fundamental level on many
topics. I don't know you, but I can tell you are an
intelligent person (maybe minus the sarcasm), so clearly you
must have reasons for not liking Fusebox. All I can do is
disagree. I tried to do it before, but now I'll make it more
.
- Original Message -
From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Friday, July 18, 2003 3:00 pm
Subject: Re: Cons to Fusebox
How about the following quote from this thread for example.
When compared to the alternatives (no structure at all, someone's
personal
best guess at something, or some
somehow refutes this statement.
- Original Message -
From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Friday, July 18, 2003 3:25 pm
Subject: Re: Cons to Fusebox
I am aware that it is Brian's own opinion and that of anyone else
who
has made a statement like that. Whether Brian is associated
]
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 4:35 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Cons to Fusebox
On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 16:36:20 -0400, in cf-talk you wrote:
In your experience,
how often do you have one developer working on the form and
another working
on the action file?
Answer: As I type.
I know the form
this statement.
- Original Message -
From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Friday, July 18, 2003 3:25 pm
Subject: Re: Cons to Fusebox
I am aware that it is Brian's own opinion and that of anyone else
who
has made a statement like that. Whether Brian is associated with
Fusebox officially
: 360.647.5351
www.audiencecentral.com
-Original Message-
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 2:03 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Cons to Fusebox
I could have sworn the other I saw a demo of Struts running on CF and
for that matter I seem
-Original Message-
From: Barney Boisvert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 3:21 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Cons to Fusebox
If I were to start a new project tomorrow, I could either grab Fusebox (or
Struts, or whatever) and start architecting and coding, or I could
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Cons to Fusebox
And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but
considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
I find it amusing that people think the use of an emoticon lets them say
whatever they like without reproach. Maybe you should check your own
-
From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Friday, July 18, 2003 3:25 pm
Subject: Re: Cons to Fusebox
I am aware that it is Brian's own opinion and that of anyone else
who
has made a statement like that. Whether Brian is associated with
Fusebox officially is irrelevant. I shared
But if you've done the requirements gathering
beforehand (I'll assume you normally do Barney - this is simply for
discussion puposes), then you would have planned for X Y and Z
from the
start, before any code was written.
As anyone who gathers requirements can attest to, getting every
Matt's here, party's over. LOL ;)
-Original Message-
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 2:00 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Cons to Fusebox
I saw this thread mentioned on Sean's blog and I was thinking about
rejoining this list before reading his
I was just giving Stace something to do while he waits for
the small sample app he asked about, Dave.
Ah, I see. At least now, you're omitting the emoticon.
If I say that no particular structure is needed solely to organize your CF
code, why would you expect me to provide one? Why would I
Brian's comment somehow refutes this
statement.
- Original Message -
From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Friday, July 18, 2003 3:25 pm
Subject: Re: Cons to Fusebox
I am aware that it is Brian's own opinion and that of anyone else
who
has made a statement like that. Whether
Dave, you have been antagonistic since you started commenting
on this thread.
I think it's unfortunate that you confuse criticism with antagonism.
Fusebox will not cease to exist because you don't like it.
I should hope not. Frankly, it doesn't bother me that people use Fusebox, or
that
Dave, the argument that Fusebox doesn't solve any real
problems is a very interesting perspective, and one I
haven't really heard before. I can't say I agree with it,
but I certainly see it's validity. In fact, it's probably
one of the more valid arguments against Fusebox that
I've
: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Friday, July 18, 2003 4:13 pm
Subject: Re: Cons to Fusebox
It may not be a big deal to you, but many people are on this list
because they care about the opinions of others. In fact, I believe
this
thread started with one developer asking for the opinions
But regarding the quote about 17,000 people, I'll say this. As
with anything, looking at ONLY the number of people doing
something is a poor gauge of the worth of that thing. However,
the fact that far, far more people use Fusebox than any other
ColdFusion methodology DOES indeed carry
I'm not going to get involved much further in this thread
because just about everything has been said.
I think you're already involved as deeply as possible.
Folks who don't like Fusebox still don't like it.
While I still don't like it, I do have a better understanding of why others
One is for administration and maintenance, and one is for
usabilty.
Is www.macromedia.com/software/coldfusion hard to remember?
No, but it might change to
www.macromedia.com/software/servers/coldfusion next week.
www.macromedia.com/go/coldfusion, on the other hand, will
NEVER change,
I didn't mean to spark controversy, I was actually just curious as to
how Dave would approach any given app...but as he pointed out
afterwards...I don't think many folks make example apps of their own
customized frameworks hehe ;-)
As for FB...I've used variations of it since xfb days...and over
: 360.756.8080 x12
fax : 360.647.5351
www.audiencecentral.com
-Original Message-
From: Shawn Grover [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 2:59 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Cons to Fusebox
-Original Message-
From: Barney Boisvert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent
I think it's time from a group hug. Come on over Matt! :)
- Original Message -
From: Dave Watts [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Friday, July 18, 2003 5:02 pm
Subject: RE: Cons to Fusebox
I'm not going to get involved much further in this thread
because just about everything has been said
Everyone enjoys discussing with Dave because he's so even keeled. Makes it so much
easier to discuss a topic.
- Original Message -
From: Brian Kotek [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Friday, July 18, 2003 5:12 pm
Subject: Cons to Fusebox
Dave, I must admit that this is the nicest and most
] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 4:05 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: RE: Cons to Fusebox
But if you've done the requirements gathering
beforehand (I'll assume you normally do Barney - this is simply for
discussion puposes), then you would have planned for X Y and Z
from
-Original Message-
From: Dave Watts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 4:14 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: URLs and abstraction (was: RE: Cons to Fusebox)
One is for administration and maintenance, and one is for
usabilty.
Is www.macromedia.com/software/coldfusion
Bravo, Judith!
Exactly the proper perspective to have, in my opinion. Given an choice,
I'll almost invariably choose to go my prefered framework for initial
development. The exceptions would be if it's both simple and not going to
be around long enough for the maintenance benefits a framework
You might be interested in Mach-II (www.mach-ii.com). Its an implicit
invocation framework that Hal Helms and a couple other guys have been
working on. It's 100% OO, entirely in CFCs. I haven't played with it
myself, but it looks pretty hot. I believe it's in beta now (it was alpha
until
On Friday, Jul 18, 2003, at 10:49 US/Pacific, Barney Boisvert wrote:
Is www.macromedia.com/software/coldfusion hard to remember? No, but it
might change to www.macromedia.com/software/servers/coldfusion next
week.
A better example is probably:
http://www.macromedia.com/exchange/coldfusion/
On Friday, Jul 18, 2003, at 10:59 US/Pacific, Matt Liotta wrote:
I saw this thread mentioned on Sean's blog and I was thinking about
rejoining this list before reading his blog, so here I am.
I'm not sure whether to be flattered that I was the final encouragement
you needed or whether you
Hi,
I'm sorry that you feel this is
personally directed at you.
I don't feel that way and never said that I did feel that way. I realize
you aren't attacking any individual, much less me. This has actually
been the best most informative Fusebox debate I have ever witnessed. I
am glad I had
Hi,
too much time organizing their CF code, and
not enough time figuring out what should be in CF
I use Fusebox almost daily, so I tend to have this under control. I
spend most of my time making sure I write the best CF code I am capable
of. This is not to say I do everything correctly; I
Hi,
Seriously, how do you measure that?
I think, largely, it is measured against personal experience. If I had
the opportunity to work with you directly and to learn how you do
things, I may indeed find your methods to be superior--and that would be
wonderful. I would then have another standard
Hi,
I am with Dave on the fact that I would not suggest a change unless I
felt it to be truly beneficial. I work on allot of non Fusebox stuff;
for that matter the entire back end of one of our PDA apps is written in
ASP... Ick. I would never suggest that it would be wise to get back into
bed
Clint Tredway wrote:
In a nutshell, I don't like having all my files going through a switch
and having a to add a case statement every time I add a section.
I've been pondering the benefits and downsides of this approach for a while
now. Since you bring it up, I was wondering what everyone
it is REALLY nice to be able to edit a few lines in your circuit
definitions and be done with it, instead of having to change links all over
the place.
I agree with most of your points.
But if you decide to change your fuseaction names and circuits structure,
don't you have to change links all
You can accomplish the same thing with dynamic paths and still not have to
use fusebox. There are easier ways to do this and not have all the overhead
of FB.
Clint
- Original Message -
From: Brian Kotek [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2003 12:48
I agree with this ;)
Clint
- Original Message -
From: Benoit Hediard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2003 1:23 PM
Subject: RE: Cons to Fusebox
it is REALLY nice to be able to edit a few lines in your circuit
definitions and be done
-Original Message-
From: Benoit Hediard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2003 11:24 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Cons to Fusebox
it is REALLY nice to be able to edit a few lines in your circuit
definitions and be done with it, instead of having to change
links all over
Abstraction is one huge benefit of circuits. When I do
index.cfm?fuseaction=store.productdetails, I don't know, or
care, WHERE the store circuit is. This applies to both the
logical and physical structure of the site. Using circuit
aliases masks these dependencies because the core file
Brian Kotek wrote:
First, I just want to be sure you understand what the fuseaction
actually is. [snip]
Yup, I understand all of that. But thanks for making sure.
Abstraction is one huge benefit of circuits. When I do
index.cfm?fuseaction=store.productdetails, I don't know, or
care, WHERE
Barney wrote:
Take this snip from FB4:
!-- this automatically adds the current circuit --
xfa name=process value=process /
...
a href=#self##xfa.process#link text/a
versus this snip from a non-FB app:
a href=../products/processproductform.cfmlink text/a
Or versus this snip from a non-FB
1 - 100 of 163 matches
Mail list logo
