I started with CF. Took me a couple of years to find fusebox -- even though Steve Nelson lived in the same town :)
I though FB2.0 was lame. FB3.0 was great though and have happily used ever since. Biggest advantage of FB in my opinion is that it's a shrinkwrapped development toolset -- . I've gone through the explicit process of developing a software methodology and development framework with a small team and it's very time intensive. FB3 and/or FLiP give you a prepackaged set to start from and either use as-is, modify, or rule out -- which is in keeping with the Agile (capital A ala Alistair Cockburn) methodologies. I use the fusebox framework for all my CF5 development. I've used Struts on Java projects and find it to be a lot of additional overhead for small projects (but then again, maybe CF is better for those smaller projects than Java in the first place!). For CFMX, the jury is still out -- most of my clients remain on CF5 and their apps are all functional in CFMX as-is. But I'm lazy and it's easier to use FB3 for development now that to come up with my own CFMX CFC-based development toolset. Same thing in the Java world -- easier to use Struts than to build your own framework. My biggest criticism of FB is, while the community is great, it's not become a project that's truly developed collaboratively like Struts or many of the other "standard" Apache/Jakarta projects. I know and like Hal and Steve and many of the others in the FB world, but no one really knows what Hal or Jeff or anyone is doing with FBMX -- there's not a public CVS to hook into, there's no straightforward process for committing modifications and changes to the standard code base. So every time I start with a Fusebox app developed by someone else, even someone really, really good, the core files are different. And there are these mods they made (e.g. FuseQ, FEX, 10,000 personal variations) that may or may not be 100% compatible. So there's a FB "core", but it's modified for individual projects and never quite makes it back to the main source code tree -- you have to find the mods, make them yourself, add the custom tag someone wrote, etc. This is still FAR better than getting someone's random methodology that you have to figure out -- some of them are simply awful. Some are great. But each requires a learning curve -- I'd rather focus on coding the application than understanding the framework. But that's me :) Most frameworks, IMHO, are simply distillations of best practices -- that's why they are useful. FB2 certainly was that. FB3 is as well -- it's good to break software into smaller functional components that can be reused. It's good to have nested layouts. It's good to have integrated error-checking, form validation and management (ie Struts), central files to configure the app (fbx_settings.cfm or config.xml), etc. And none of these frameworks are the golden fleece -- Struts is really good for form-based applications. Velocity/Turbine/Torque is good for heavy-database oriented apps that can benefit from data object autogeneration. FB is really good for scripted web apps. etc. None are perfect (it's like ERP systems -- none are good, and whatever you chose for yourself is the worst one) but all distill good ideas into a coherent package to grab and use. Regards, John Paul Ashenfelter CTO/Transitionpoint [EMAIL PROTECTED] ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bryan Stevenson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 4:39 PM Subject: Re: FBX3 AND CFMX > Couldn't have said it better myself Michael > > Do what works for you and your projects ;-) > > I still wouldn't mind hearing from the FBers out there.... > > Did you start CF with FB or pickup FB along the way? > > 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 12:40 PM > Subject: RE: FBX3 AND CFMX > > > > Hi, > > > > Actually, I totally understand where you're coming from. I wasn't trying > > to imply that Fusebox is better, because for some people it certainly is > > not. And, you are right--A methodology is supposed to make development > > smoother; or at least more standardized. If it doesn't then you > > shouldn't use it. Given that Fusebox has been through so many changes > > and because there are now several hybrids available that address many of > > the issues developers have faced in the past, I was simply suggesting > > that you re-test the waters to determine if the workaround issues you > > are concerned with still exist. > > > > In any case, you seem to be very comfortable and productive within your > > own methodology; that is all that truly counts. :) > > > > Best regards > > MW > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Bryan Stevenson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 3:21 PM > > To: CF-Talk > > Subject: Re: FBX3 AND CFMX > > > > > > Nope..ya missed my point....CFMX migration was just an example. > > but now we're heading towards what's better ;-) > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| 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
