Nope..ya missed my point....CFMX migration was just an example. I've seen lost of issues that FBers have had to workaround just to work within the methodology. To me personally (and ain't nobody gonna change my mind) that is counter productive.
I've always built custom apps (tailored to meet the clients needs/standards etc.) and I've never had any problem with other coders taking over and understanding the whole app or the portion they need to build and slot in. but now we're heading towards what's better ;-) I got a great unbiased response from Barney and I'm happy with that. 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: "Michael Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 12:00 PM Subject: RE: FBX3 AND CFMX > Hi, > > If I understand your point correctly, I would argue that migrating any > existing application, Fusebox or other, to CFMX could potentially > require some code adjustments. For me, Fusebox has worked fine on CFMX > with only a single modification--telling Fusebox which version of CF I'm > using. Also, I think the benefit of standardized development practices > is one of the features that attract developers to Fusebox. I like the > fact that all of the developers in my department are coding in the same > manner and that there is a large community that supports the > methodology. If you haven't looked at it for a while, you might want to > check out FuseQ, a Fusebox-hybrid (I think Techspedition calls it a > "private implementation") that addresses some of the shortcomings > (multiple fuseaction requests--per page, error handling, security, and > etc.) of Fusebox 3. The cool thing about FuseQ, beyond the enhancements > it delivers, is that it can be used as a replacement for all Fusebox 3 > applications--even if you don't use the FuseQ features. > > I started using Fusebox during version 2 and dropped it as well--version > 3 is much better and FuseQ adds some really useful features. > > http://www.techspedition.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=articles.showArticle&A > rticleID=108 > > Best regards, > MW > > -----Original Message----- > From: Bryan Stevenson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > 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. > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| 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 Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
