Hi, Before I add my comments let me say that I totally understand your points and agree that "to each his own" is the best approach to take when it comes to framework--at least in this forum. As Brian pointed out, there is always more than one way to skin a cat and any two ways may be equally as efficient. Personally, I think the main benefit of Fusebox is that I do not have to figure out alternate ways of doing what is already established.
>> In your experience, how often do you have one >> developer working on the form and another working >> on the action file? Offhand, I would say, not often; however, fuseactions are very often worked on by individual developers. This would imply that a developer responsible for myApp.contact would create the query, the form, and the action for his fuseaction while the developer responsible for myApp.search did the same for his fuseaction. There is really no need for one to know what the other is doing or how each fuseaction flows together within the circuit. >> On a similar note, I much prefer that my developers >> know the internals of a system instead of working blind. >> Not so much that they can make changes but rather so that >> they can understand the reason why things work out the >> way they do. This is the very essence of Fusebox. The entire framework is built around the idea of a standard architecture that improves team development because everyone is on the same page. >> Fusebox seems to add the additional overhead of *ALSO* >> having to create a virtual file structure I have never looked at it in terms of a virtual file structure. I can see how this could seem like overhead and many have been confused by it (mainly due to lack of documentation). The concept is simple enough; you are merely creating an alias to a directory path within fbx_Circuits.cfm. For example: <cfset fusebox.circuits.foo = "dir/dir2/dir3/foo";>. Instead of using the path you can use "foo". If you need to move foo, you need only rewrite one line of code. >> Let me give you a more fleshed out example of the >> security privilege dialog. I believe Hal Helms has addressed this issue in a paper he wrote some time back. I do not have the URL handy, but I am sure it is on his site somewhere; http://www.halhelms.com. I believe his method allows for control via permissions down to the fuse level. I am not as current on Fusebox 4 as I should be; however, I think I have heard mention of this being built in or available through the new plug-in feature. >> Splitting a circuit seems to me like there was a >> problem with the original design of the system. Possibly, but it could also be caused by scope creep, which, I find is most often the case; however I find splitting a circuit after the fact to be a rare occurrence. FLiP helps to bring these issues out before coding begins. Best regards, Michael Wilson ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| 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 Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in ColdFusion and related topics. http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
