time.
sas
Scott Stewart
Web Application Developer, AMTI
AIR-520
(202)-385-4545
Brainbench Certified Cold Fusion 4.5
Brainbench Certified HTML 3.2
"S. Isaac Dealey"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: CF-Talk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc:
12/10/2003 02:33 Subject: Re:Fusebox - whats the big deal anyway?
AM
Please respond to
cf-talk
Welcome. Glad to know it's appreciated. :)
> Good writing, thanks.
>>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.
>>>>|
>>>>| 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?
>>>>|
>>>>said is opinion.
>>>>|
>>>>| From: Dan Farmer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>| Sent: December 6, 2003 11:34 AM
>>>>| To: CF-Talk
>>>>| Subject: Fusebox - whats the big deal anyway?
>>>>|
>>>>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.
>>>>|
>>>>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?
>>>>|
>>>>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
>>>>|
>>>>|
>>>>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.
>>>>|
>>>>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]
