Mach II isn't really OO based, I'd say. It's more event based than anything
else.
-----Original Message-----
From: S. Isaac Dealey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: December 7, 2003 6:23 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re:Fusebox - whats the big deal anyway?
Yep, Hal Helms has been a big proponent of OO for a while. He was
working with a language called SmallTalk iirc prior to ColdFusion
which was an OO language. And that probably also has a lot to do with
his relationship to the new Mach-II framework which was originally
intended to be labelled Fusebox MX before Hal decided to keep Fusebox
as a proecural framework. I'm not sure if Hal kept it procedural for
the sake of other developers or just because he suddenly had a lot of
really great ideas about how to improve the existing framework.
I'm a pretty big fan of OO concepts myself -- code reuse is a big part
of OO, but more importantly, OO divides code reuse into several
different avenues, most notably inheritance and interfaces. I think of
OO code reuse as "meta-code reuse" -- it's less that you're reusing
entire chunks of code (like a custom tag or a function) than that
you're reusing bits and pieces of a large chunk (a class or object),
while you suppress or replace other chunks on an as-needs basis. In
some cases, such as with interfaces and polymorphism you may not even
be reusing code per-se, but rather reusing the content the code
manipulates, or the code's "meta-structure" while the guts of it have
been entirely rewritten.
OO functionality can often be created even when the language isn't
inherently OO itself (virtual OO you might say). See for instance
cfObjects.com which is a "competing" framework, although now that CFMX
includes CFC's, there seems to be little call for cfObjects in
general. Fusebox itself doesn't have any (that I'm aware of) built-in
model for inheritance, interfaces or polymorphism, which are the
staples of OO. Did Hal intend to steer the community toward OO? It's
conceivable, although I don't think that's the case. Otherwise I think
Hal's recommendations likely would have much more closely resembled
cfObjects.
My own framework (I couldn't respond without mentionig it :) also
includes a lot of built-in methods for reusing code and managing code
reuse in a consistent manner. In particular, the tiered application,
html header and local settings stages of an onTap framework request
allow for code to be easily applied across an entire site, an entire
section of a site, or within an individual page or process, using the
logical directory names you would create for an application anyway,
i.e. /members/forum/post/ for instance. Is it OO? No it's not. I don't
think it needs to be. Does it have some similarities to OO? Yea, sure.
But ultimately it's a procedural framework because it doesn't need to
be OO to accomplish its goal of providing consistent code structure
and a fast, flexible means of creating, maintaining and extending
ColdFusion applications.
Ultimately I think the choice of framework should depend more on the
developers involved in a project and their needs (including the needs
of the project) than on any particular ideology like OO.
s. isaac dealey 972-490-6624
team macromedia volunteer http://www.macromedia.com/go/team
chief architect, tapestry cms http://products.turnkey.to
onTap is open source http://www.turnkey.to/ontap
> If the key benefit of FuseBox is about code-reuse, then, I
> would say, code-reuse is not unique to FuseBox. In the
> days before FuseBox, many of us were already practising
> code-reuse methodology.
> Probably the creator(s) of FuseBox were big into
> object-oriented programming, and wanted to steer the CFers
> towards that direction with FuseBox, but I could be
> totally wrong on this assumption.
> Don Li
>>My very favorite feature with fusebox is only having to
>>modify code in one place
>>and it will apply to the entire site.
>>
>>Fusebox is a methodology, not a religion, therefore it is
>>your option to develop
>>web sites with reusable code or any other methodology that
>>is acceptable between
>>you and your client.
>>
>>======================================
>>Stop spam on your domain, use our gateway!
>>http://www.clickdoug.com/mailfilter.cfm
>>For hosting solutions http://www.clickdoug.com
>>Featuring Win2003 Enterprise, RedHat Linux, CFMX 6.1 and
>>PHP
>>======================================
>>If you are not satisfied with my service, my job isn't
>>done!
>>
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: "Gabriel Robichaud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>Sent: Saturday, December 06, 2003 12:54 PM
>>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]
