Before the argument appears, yes this can be accomplished using other
architectures or none at all. FuseBox just makes them very simple to
implement.
FuseBox makes code very modular. Instead of writing a huge cfml page that
contains all sort of queries, logic, and display - I write code bits that
can be assembled in different ways, resulting in a variety of functionality
and output. Think of it this way, if I asked you to completely change the
look of one of your web applications without changing the actual backend -
how long would it take? How many bugs would you introduce trying to find
every piece of display logic without breaking something else? With FuseBox,
I have a series of display files that are completely separate from my logic
and backend. I can very easily swap in one display for another without any
chance of breaking the backend.
The second argument is reusability. Suppose you build an application for a
client. Down the road, your client wants upgrades and modifications and
calls me in. Now, it order to make those changes, I first have to spend
quite a bit of time figuring out exactly what you did and try to guess why.
Now, if you had written your app in FuseBox, I could fairly easily look at
the self documenting FuseDocs and the circuit structure to determine how the
application works. On top of that, I could make changes in a few bits of
code and as long as I worked inside of the documentation, I would not have
to work about any of the other code.
So, by writing in a standard architecture (no matter which one), you make it
easier for somebody else to pickup where you left off and hopefully easier
for you to pickup an old app and easily make changes.
Is FuseBox the end all solution - no. It works for most of my applications,
but some still benefit for not using it. I have also found that just
because an app may be too simple right now - in all likelihood there will be
changes needed down the road that will change it into a complex app. Scope
creek occurs no matter the app size.
-- Jeff
-----Original Message-----
From: Kwang Suh [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, December 06, 2003 1:48 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Fusebox - whats the big deal anyway?
I suggest you read the documentation that the fusebox site has.
Rather than bitching about Fusebox (a most particular waste of time), I
suggest you download the examples and try them out.
-----Original Message-----
From: Dan Farmer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: December 6, 2003 12:41 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Fusebox - whats the big deal anyway?
Those terms you use "preprocess" "layouts" and "postprocess [ insert jargon
here ]" mean nothing to those who don't use FB. Could you explain it, in
simpler terms?
>X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Dec 2003 19:36:47.0111 (UTC)
>FILETIME=[4952A170:01C3BC30]
>
>Like I keep saying, no one is asking you to use it. Yeesh.
>
>As for benefits, one very obvious benefit are layouts (FB3), preprocess and
>postprocess directives (FB4).
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Gabriel Robichaud [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: December 6, 2003 12:24 PM
>To: CF-Talk
>Subject: RE: Fusebox - whats the big deal anyway?
>
>
>Ok... so you make a valid point of saying anyone can use it. I still dont
>see why I should use it. I can use Pascal if I want, but i dont think i
>should. Thats what I keep hearing, fusebox is usefull, fusebox will do
>this, fusebox will do that, but nobody really says why. When i decided to
>explore CFML programming, a colleague said : "It will make your programming
>easier." and i said "why is that" to which he replied "Because you will
>need
>less code to do the same task, and its tag based, both of which will enable
>you to have quicker turn arounds". That to me is why. Just saying because
>its easier is not a reason.
>
>
>So why is it easy to use? How is it useful?
>
>
>Gabriel
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Kwang Suh [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Saturday, December 06, 2003 2:06 PM
>To: CF-Talk
>Subject: RE: Fusebox - whats the big deal anyway?
>
>Are you sure the questions are "overly complicated", or are you not sure
>about the context of the questions?
>
>Anyhow, Fusebox is easy to use and very useful. Heck, if I can teach a
>very
>junior programmer to use it mindlessly, I'm sure anyone else can.
>
>As for the creativity aspect, like I said before, if you like creating your
>own frameworks, then go right ahead (I know a few people on this list
>have).
>No one's holding a gun to your head.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Gabriel Robichaud [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: December 6, 2003 11:54 AM
>To: CF-Talk
>Subject: RE: Fusebox - whats the big deal anyway?
>
>I for one would love to see the arguments FOR using fusebox. I have been
>to
>the FB web site and I am not sure its worth the effort of learning a
>completely new mehtodology and reengineering my processes to fit someone
>elses model. I think that Dan's points are valid especially when it comes
>to creativity, but I am sure there are opinions, very good ones, pro FB. I
>just don`t see them. What I do see, is a lot of people posting questions
>about it on the forums that seem overly complicated, and honestly, the last
>thing i need is more complication in my Dev process.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Kwang Suh [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Saturday, December 06, 2003 1:37 PM
>To: CF-Talk
>Subject: RE: Fusebox - whats the big deal anyway?
>
>If you don't like it, don't use it. Everything you've said is opinion.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Dan Farmer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: December 6, 2003 11:34 AM
>To: CF-Talk
>Subject: Fusebox - whats the big deal anyway?
>
>First off I admit that I don't know much about Fusebox, other than it's a
>methodology for writing web application software. I've done a bit of
>research into it. And quite frankly I don't see what the big deal is.
>
>I think the thing I don't like about it, is that Fusebox is someone else's
>idea of how to create a web application. So right off the bat Fusebox
>developers "short-cicrut" their own creative ways to use Coldfusion and
>place themselves into a box that someone else has defined?
>
>Again, I'm no expert on programming or coldfusion ( I do know some ), but I
>think what I do know is creativity. Would it not be more fun, more exciting
>to develop your own methods of doings things? Methods that are customized
>to
>
>your own unique personality and skill?
>
>I do welcome Fusebox developers to enlighten me as to the benefit of using
>it and why. Maybe even comment on how they can use their own creative
>processes within it. Right now, Fusebox just seems like a good idea for the
>person who created.
>
>We could all create a new methodology ourselves...right now.... call it
>"Ultimate Coral Dragon", then write books and articles...I don't know, it
>all seems silly.
>
>_ ______
>Daniel Farmer
>Web Developer Consultant
>P: 613.284.1684
> _____
> _____
> _____
> _____
> _____
>
>
>
_____
_____
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
