Bryan Stevenson writes: > Thanks Barney....starightforward explanation without the "mines bigger than > yours" comments ;-) > > I certainly don't want the "is FB good" debate either >
is it better than, say... CFFORM? /me ducks :) charlie > 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
