I have to disagree with this opinion. As I see it, there are two major 'types' of fusebox: normal and fuseQ. However, FB includes much outside the core file's functionality, such as filename prefixes, the breakdown in to circuits, fuseactions and fuses, and the use of fusedocs, all of which aren't tied to the core file at all. I'm probably being something of a heretic by saying that the core file's specific functionality is one of the least important pieces of FB, but it's not that far from the truth. FB isn't a technology, it's a methodology with some associated technology. You can thrash the tech as much as you want, but if you still follow the methodology, then another FB developer will be able to slide in and get to work very quickly. A qry_ file is still a qry_ file, and if you want to screw with the user admin code, you still look for the 'useradmin' circuit in fbx_Circuits.cfm, and go to the appropriate directory, where everything is located. Sure, fbx_Circuits might be XML based, and you're using symlinks for your general-purpose circuits, but if you tell the new guy that once, he'll never need to ask again, because that kind of stuff is such a small piece of the puzzle.
barneyb > -----Original Message----- > From: Andrew Tyrone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 9:11 AM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: RE: FBX3 AND CFMX > > I think the reason that people make so many variations of Fusebox > is because > they are constantly finding limitations. As you stated, there could be so > many variations of it, and when troubleshooting one of those > variations, it > still takes the same amount of time to figure out the modified "framework" > as it would any other "framework". You either get lucky and have to > troubleshoot someone's well put-together application, no matter what the > methodology, or you get to slog through some Heinous Wonderland > of Spagehtti > Code. If an application is 50% Fusebox because it needed to be "tweaked", > then I say you'll have just as hard a time following it as you would a > home-grown mess. This is because you have a preconceived notion > of what the > app should be if it's Fusebox, and cetain things won't be in the right > places, which is just as frustrating and hard as troubleshooting code put > together in some other framework you've never seen before. > > --Andy > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| 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
