Mike,
> Don't let Hal Helms hear you say that.
>
> The Fusebox specification is a set of core files which are distributed with
> a demo to help you learn how to work.
>
I hate to be a pedant, but I have to agree with Jeffry on this :
spec�i�fi�ca�tion (sps-f-kshn)
n.
1.. The act of specifying.
2..
1.. specifications A detailed, exact statement of particulars, especially a
statement prescribing materials, dimensions, and quality of work for something to be
built, installed, or manufactured.
2.. A single item or article that has been specified.
3.. An exact written description of an invention by an applicant for a patent.
Therefore a bunch of files and a couple of demos, do not a specification make.... And
before anyone mentions them, a couple of books interpreting a deluge of emails with no
written word to base them on are not specifications either.
This is one of my pet peeves with FB3. There is no written word on how it should be
used or should work. At least with FB2 there were the couple of white papers and
Steve Nelson's book was a pretty good go at specifying the Fusebox methodology.
Another pet peeve with FB3 is it is virtually unreadable! One of the original tenets
of Fusebox was that the code that was generated by a developer using FB code be given
to another developer with no knowledge of Fusebox and they would be able to easily see
what is happening in the code, what is being called where etc. etc. It was supposed to
be and was self documenting to some extent. FB3 is a biggest pile of unreadable
spaghetti you could possibly have the misfortune to come across.
For instance.... I've been coding with FB for about 4 years now, probably a bit
longer. I've had various conversations with Steve Nelson, Craig Girard et al, back
when the FB list was on Michael's mail server and it wasn't so insane. So you'd think
I have a pretty good grasp of the Fusebox method..... Well it would seem not... I
went to a client to talk about server performance tuning and an element of code
performance tuning. They asked me if I would have a look at a real example and give
them my thoughts. They told me it was a FB application, so I said, yeah sure no
problem.
I opened up the code......... I tried to work out what the files were being included
to display the home page.... I treked back and forth through the various core files,
step by step, line by line, with the client looking over my shoulder.
We never managed to find what was actually displaying the home page in the hour that
we had allocated to look at the code. Admittedly, we were looking at other aspects of
the code as well, but we still should have been able to get to the templates for the
home page within a few moments......
Arrgghhh! Now I'm on a rant too!
Another thing that annoys me about FB3 is that people think that it makes good code
automatically. It doesn't! Even making use of some of the undocumented techniques
does not make good code. FB3 is only good in the right situation and if you use all
parts of the method, right from analysis right through to coding. It is no longer a
coding standard, but an analysis and design methodology. So many many people fail to
see this and try to just use their own interpretation undocumented coding standards to
write their applications and make a lovely paste dish!
At least FB2 was documented, was only a suggestion for a coding standard and was
readable. It had the advantage of having tools to help you with additional
documentation (the original fusedocs) and for developing the application (DevNotes and
wireframes)
> Maybe the Fusebox council needs to do a little more to promote awareness of
> their product.
>
/expletive deleted/ What they need to do is write the document that explains Fusebox
from start to finish, make it freely available and create multiple core files for each
possible installation of CF (why do I need code that handles Linux file paths and
Apache CGI variables, when I'm running on IIS5 on Windows 2000???) I believe someone
out there started writing their own coding practice white paper called KISS (Keep It
Simple Specificiation or something like that). This is something that has been
forgotten with FB3 and maybe thats what the Fusebox Council need to be doing.....
Getting back to basics and keeping it simple!
~takes deep breath and quits ranting~
Going back to what Michael started on...
> Yes, I'm ranting a bit. I'm helping out a friend with a project and modifying
> a commercial product (one he paid money for). Now you'd expect that a commercial
> product would have good code, right? You'd expect that a product that supposedly
> followed a methodology would have good code, right? That the code would be written
> intelligently, that it would not repeat itself or fall over itself, right? Well,
>this code is poorly
> written, does not use any best practices (I see CFSETs with pound signs around
>everything),
> uses one of the Fusebox methodologies (one of as the methodology has splintered) and
>is just
> not good code. And I have to make it good code.
>
Heh heh... Yeah right... Commercial code that is good code....
~snigger~ isn't that why commercial code is always encrypted??
> I'm going to start CF classes. If you write bad code, you get hit with a shock prod.
>If
> you release bad code, you get abused by a large bull (let your imagination run free
>here).
> It'll be learn it right and tight or wish you were in a Turkish jail being
>interrogated by Abdul.
>
I've got a pressure washer here that you could use for water torture, if you like....
:o)
I'll shut up now and get on with some work..... ;o)
Stephen
______________________________________________________________________
This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for
dependable ColdFusion Hosting.
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
