> > The same way someone can drive a car into a tree, so can someone take a > perfectly good framework and use it to make sh*t. > Yup...
> The problem with the application you described sounds very atypical to me, > and I would be very concerned about my own skills as a developer if I was > unable to track down some code for a home page within an hour after being > given access to the files. > Hey! Be nice! You don't know me or what my skills are! Also that alloted hour was not just for tracking down the home page. It was for a _brief_ code review _with_ the client at my side. I should have been able to find the home page templates in seconds. > I look at a fuseaction to determine the circuit and the fuseaction. I look > in the fbx_circuits.cfm file to determine the physical location of the code, > and then in the fbx_switch.cfm file within the circuit directory to find the > specfic fuseaction containing the code. If the problem is not there, I go to > the fbx_settings.cfm or the application.cfm file to find it. > That's great, but because of the distinct lack of documentation (plus there were no books on FB3 six months ago) and general lack of understanding of how FB3 works, the code I got to look at did not follow any rules and was spaghetti. The fbx_circuits.cfm and fbx_switch.cfm did not give a straight translation of fuseaction to physical circuit and action. > As for the readability of a fusebox application looking like spaghetti, > included below is a sample fusedoc I wrote in June. It explains the code > coming into the page more than adequately and, coupled with the other 600 or > so Fusedocs contained within the system, gives me an almost complete > understanding of how the system works. It seems fairly clear to me, with or > without a sauce. > I hate to point this out, but what you've actually given me is a FuseDoc, _not_ a FB3 code sample and yes FuseDocs are nice and clear. _This_ is exactly what I mean about people not understanding that you MUST use all of FB3 and not just the coding standards. FuseDocs are an addition to the coding standard. Many people just try to use the coding standards without the FuseDocs. FB2 did start to have FuseDocs included in them, but you are still able to read a FB2 index and immediately get an overview of the circuit, its functions and where templates are called. The code I was reviewing with a client did not have Fusedocs. > If you want the specification, download the core files from www.fusebox.org > along with the documents for FB2 (which outline the core concepts) and Hal > Helms' paper on the differences between FB2 and FB3. > I refer you back to the definition of "specification" ;o) > If you are asking that > the developers explain the function of each and every line of code contained > within the core files, you will have to refer to the comments contained > within each core file. > Nope. I don't expect that, but I don't expect that at all. > How much else are you asking for? > Some real specification on FB3 would be good start! Regards Stephen ______________________________________________________________________ Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
