On Thursday, Jul 17, 2003, at 15:59 US/Pacific, Brian Kotek wrote: > Andrew Tyrone writes: >> The phrase "use what works for you" comes to mind. I don't think a >> lot of >> people that DON'T use Fusebox are "opponents" -- but many have >> credible >> reasons why they don't use it. > I actually haven't really seen any specific things that people don't > like about Fusebox...just lots of statements like it's too much > "trouble", or "overhead", or how they can pick one thing about Fusebox > and do it in a different way. And I can promise you that there are > PLENTY of people that don't use Fusebox and are quite ready to attack > at any time.
Yes, I've actually blogged this thread because it's the most constructive discussion of Fusebox that I've ever seen... And I will agree with Brian that there are many people who diss Fusebox without even giving it a chance. Like all frameworks, it's not perfect - but for a large number of people it provides them with enough out-of-the-box machinery that it makes it much easier for them to build websites. I use Fusebox now. After a fashion. I rewrote my personal site using FB3 and, at first, I found it annoying as hell but as I continued to maintain the site, the benefits of a standard framework became more and more obvious. For example, I was able to standardize the links on my blog to match the rest of my site by wrapping the generated HTML (from Movable Type) in a Fusebox circuit in just a few minutes. Now that I've had to start a new blog (after losing access to the former database files in a server upgrade - don't ask!), I'll be able to wrap that up - along with the old blog - in the 'blog' circuit in such a way that the two blogs will (mostly) appear as one. That's because Fusebox provides an abstraction layer between the URLs and the actual files and file structures. I can - and have - moved files around quite a bit since I moved to Fusebox and I have not broken any URLs / bookmarks because that layer is dynamically abstracted away from the files. That's a *huge* benefit in my opinion. >> I've also seen people get angry when others refuse to adopt >> it. It's certainly true that *some* Fuseboxers are a little overzealous. This was actually one of the things that put me off Fusebox in the beginning - I don't like evangelism! In fact, my criticisms of Fusebox were so harsh that Hal started publicly teasing me about it... and, now, I like to think that Hal and others see me in a more reasonable light and I've certainly tried to understand Fusebox and become more active in the FB community and the recent beta programs. And you know what? Once I tried it and really gave it a chance, I changed my opinion. I still don't go around saying "Hey, you should try Fusebox because it's just the best thing!" but I will at least defend some of the concepts it embodies because they *are* good ideas (separate presentation from logic, parameterize workflow, standardize structure etc). Sean A Corfield -- http://www.corfield.org/blog/ "If you're not annoying somebody, you're not really alive." -- Margaret Atwood ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| 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 Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
