Thanks Barney....starightforward explanation without the "mines bigger than yours" comments ;-)
I certainly don't want the "is FB good" debate either Cheers Bryan Stevenson B.Comm. VP & Director of E-Commerce Development Electric Edge Systems Group Inc. t. 250.920.8830 e. [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------- Macromedia Associate Partner www.macromedia.com --------------------------------------------------------- Vancouver Island ColdFusion Users Group Founder & Director www.cfug-vancouverisland.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Barney Boisvert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 10:30 AM Subject: RE: FBX3 AND CFMX > I don't want to get into the quarterly "is FB good" debate, but had to reply > to this post. I'm obviously on the side of FB, but tried to make this > objective. I will studiously ignore any flames ;) > > FB is not perfect for any individual use, as is any piece of general-purpose > software. However, it is pretty darn good, and lets you (as the architect > and/or developer) concentrate on the functional pieces, rather than how the > functional pieces interact with each other. Yes it has it's problems > (performance being one), but they are more than made up for it it's ability > to streamline development, and instill a consistent feel to ALL code, which > makes going back and updating apps MUCH easier, especially if you haven't > worked with them in a long while. > > It is also viewed as overly simplistic, and it is in a lot of ways when > compared to other frameworks. Jakarta Struts in particular takes a very > similar approach to organizing the functional pieces, but brings a lot of > extra functionality with it (such I18N stuff) that FB doesn't. When I > started working with FB (after learning CF), everything was a little > confusing, but it made relative sense, and the underlying logic behind the > architecture was appearent after only a few weeks of using it. When I > played with Struts for a couple weeks a year ago or so, I found myself quite > confused by all the options and stuff it presented to the developer. Of > course, you can simply ignore a lot of it, but figuring out HOW to ignore it > was the trick. I'd have found it much easier if Struts came in a stripped > down format, with a set of modules that you can easily activate (kind of > like Apache HTTP Server). > > FB takes the route of a minimal framework that you can add stuff to. There > isn't a large set of prepared modules for adding functionality (SES is one, > I'm sure there are others), but it does strip all the extra junk out of the > framework, and let the developer only add in what he/she wants, as he/she > wants it. > > Conclusion: FB is good at what it does, while remaining general. It is > designed for a (relatively) shallow learning curve, and makes some > sacrifices for that. This places it in the perfect position for simpler > apps, but allows it to work for huge apps as well, and best of all, easily > allows small apps to grow into huge apps without much trouble. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Bryan Stevenson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 10:17 AM > > To: CF-Talk > > Subject: Re: FBX3 AND CFMX > > > > > > On a personal note..... > > > > It still baffles me that people use FB simply because I always see various > > wrokarounds etc. because of using FB (like simply because of switching to > > CFMX this or that must be re-worked). I fully understand the "hand off to > > other coders and easy to update" ideal of FB, but any well written app has > > those features. So I'm left wondering....why use FB if it adds to your > > problems? > > > > Did most FB folks start CF using FB or adopt it along the way? > > > > Personally I started using a similar methodology before FB existed....saw > > limitations I didn't like and dropped it. > > > > my 2 cents ;-) > > > > Bryan Stevenson B.Comm. > > VP & Director of E-Commerce Development > > Electric Edge Systems Group Inc. > > t. 250.920.8830 > > e. [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > --------------------------------------------------------- > > Macromedia Associate Partner > > www.macromedia.com > > --------------------------------------------------------- > > Vancouver Island ColdFusion Users Group > > Founder & Director > > www.cfug-vancouverisland.com > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Sean A Corfield" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 8:21 AM > > Subject: Re: FBX3 AND CFMX > > > > > > > On Thursday, Feb 20, 2003, at 05:42 US/Pacific, Larry Juncker wrote: > > > > Then everything works SUPER..... > > > > > > One issue to be aware of is if any of your fbx_switch.cfm files contain > > > a large number of cases *and* a lot of code - you may hit the Java > > > switch/jump limit. A couple of people have reported running into that > > > with FB3. Moving the big blocks of into included files solves the > > > problem. I believe the CFMX Updaters have also mitigated this problem > > > (can anyone comment on that?). > > > > > > Sean A Corfield -- http://www.corfield.org/blog/ > > > > > > "If you're not annoying somebody, you're not really alive." > > > -- Margaret Atwood > > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
