As with any design pattern, it's a given that eventually, the pattern will have to be violated for some particular bit of functionality.
----- Original Message ----- From: Fregas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Thursday, February 20, 2003 1:38 pm Subject: Re: FBX3 AND CFMX > Bryan, > > I think the issues here is trade-offs. To use fusebox, you must > give up > certain ways of coding and adopt others. This might make certain > tasks"more difficult". The question is: are the sacrifices made > to conform to > fusebox worth accepting in order to avoid some problems and take > advantageof the framework? This is where you'll get arguments. > Also, fusebox isn't > meant to be a straight jacket. There are times where you must simply > violate the methodology to do what needs to be done. This isn't > necessarilybad any more than violating OOP principals to make a > database layer in an > application is bad (because databases aren't OOP.) > > An example of this is when I was using Fusebox 2. Fusebox 2 had > the rule: > "THOU SHALT PUT ALL CFINCLUDES AND CFMODULES IN THE INDEX.CFM. > THOU SHALT > NOT PUT THEM IN ANY OTHER FILE." This was a rule that helped me > enormouslyin the majority of applications and kept from having > includes that included > other includes and so on. Well, I needed to use recursion in one > particularproject. Since there were no UDFs or CFCs back than I > had to have a > fuseaction that CFINCLUDED a file that CFMODULED itself. This > violatedfusebox principals but under that circumstance I thought > it was very > appropriate to do so. > > My opinion is that fusebox makes 90% of application development in > coldfusion easier and more standardized. The other 10% you have > to either > violate the "rules" or make a work around. > > You'll probably more often hear about people needing workarounds > and needing > help because the other 90% of their development went well and they > don'tneed to talk about that. > > Just my 0.02. > > Fregas > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Bryan Stevenson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 2:21 PM > Subject: Re: FBX3 AND CFMX > > > > 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
