>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]
