Ohhhhhh yeahhhh, I was waiting for someone to say that :-)
I actually DID the application in fusebox and it turned out
rather nicely. It was even rather painless honestly.
We dont even adhere to Fusebox except seperating logic from
presentation (queries/HTMl displaying 'fuses') and a main
index.cfm to route everything through. Thats the main tenets
anyways.
It works fine, I am just saying some of the time some paradigi
work better in some places than others. I *get* it, it is
just a matter of the shoe fitting, and the shoe don't always
fit and anything anyone tries to tell me to convince me
otherwise is wasting their breath. WindowsNT is NOT the best
for everything, Fusebox is NOT the best for everything.
It may be good for most everything, but I really dislike
you simply stating "Your wrong!!!" without backing up
the claim at all, Please.. teach me why I am wrong so
we can all know what you do??
I realize headers and footers are not always the best
way to do things which is why I had to skirt around them
even though they are reocmmended.
I am not making broad critical remarks on fusebox, I
actually DID use fusebox and found the code to be a bit
more structured than it probably would have been using
"my way" but thats hard to say.
So please please dont do the same thing your saying others
are doing by trying to group all statements into one reply.
Fusebox is not everything, some people may not even be
as productive in Fusebox, and while I realize you were
just attempting to point out what you feel to be someones
inexperience with what fusebox is and how it should work
not ever company/person/whatever is going to have the
same experience as everyone else has etc. etc.
Now I cant argue against the philosophy behind Fusebox.
Channel everything through a central fall that calls
out your fuses, and seperate logic(queries/whatever)
from your presentation(html). That is really so loose
and broad you can still see somewhat poor development
creep into the scenario, But I will say that if someone
has a way they find to be more productive or has a
methodology that works for them and they are sucessful
dont deride them for it.
It is especially offensive to me and everyone
you "grouped" into this category to assume none of
us have a clue of what Fusebox is....
Jeremy Allen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-----Original Message-----
From: Sean Renet [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2000 3:44 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [CF-Talk] RE: Ben Forta, I call on thee (was: What is
Fusebox )
Jeremy you are wrong, see my reply to Dave regarding dynamic frames.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeremy Allen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2000 10:50 AM
Subject: RE: [CF-Talk] RE: Ben Forta, I call on thee (was: What is Fusebox )
> Can I second that?
>
> We do work on a largish FuseBox app and I had to write a
> chat client (scary using HTTP in and of itself) and..
> most of the pages including the header and footer is
> overhead not only that it just made it silly so now
> chat is a bastard child of sorts that skirts around
> several things such as headers and footers of
> the rest of the app.
>
> One frame submits another which rewrites another frame.
> Fusebox was *not* up to that sort of thing really. It
> is much easier to totally seperate the logic processing
> (Grabbing messaging updating message tables updating users
> etc. etc) into a totally seperate 'layer' of the app.
>
> And then just have another layer that 'rewrites' the
> actual display or presentation.
>
> One of the reasons CF/ASP/whatever code is so darned ugly
> is some of the time you just have to mix presentation with
> logic (often), and some of the time core components of your
> logic.
>
> Fusebox helps in this area, but only some of the way, it
> is my personal belief it can some of the time obfusticate
> this goal somewhat, You cant always have your cake and
> eat it too :)
>
> Jeremy Allen
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dick Applebaum [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2000 12:54 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> Subject: RE: [CF-Talk] RE: Ben Forta, I call on thee (was: What is
> Fusebox )
>
>
> At 10:39 AM -0400 9/19/00, Dave Watts wrote:
> >
> >At Fig Leaf, our goals are not to build CF-centric applications, but
n-tier
> >applications. We partition application logic between the application
server
> >(CF), the database, the client, and potentially object tiers between the
> >application server and the database. Fusebox doesn't address how to
manage
> >that complexity, so it doesn't work for us from that approach.
> >
> >We provide complex client interfaces, using frames, JavaScript, Dynamic
> HTML
> >and Flash. It's not uncommon for our applications to have one frame
> >dynamically generating the contents of another. Fusebox, with its header
> and
> >footer files, is spectacularly unsuited to this.
> >
>
> I agree totally with the above!. I tend to use a lot of frames and
> client_side programming to reduce bandwith and improve the user
> experience. To accomplish this, you need to distribute much of the
> programming logic for navigation/validation and what I call
> application "lubricant" or "glue" to the client.
>
> Another technique I like to use is to combine the logic to:
>
> present a form
> validate a form
> Re-present a form in error ( with a popup explaining all errors
> Present the response to an Accepted form
>
> in a separate program module/template... it is a lot easier to
> delegate the entire process to a separate module, rather than
> distribute it among separate modules navigated by index.cfm
>
> There are times where you must invoke external operations (Cybercash,
> CFHTTP harvesting, etc). These operations can timeout (no response)
> or return an error.
>
> When this happens, you need to retry a given number of times, then
> try an alternate route.
>
> At each of these stages, you could get another, possibly different, error.
>
> Example from an early CyberCash/CashRegister implementation:
>
> Attempt 1: Cybercash - Authorization Times out (No response)
> Attempt 2: Cybercash - Authorization declined - already posted
> Attempt 3: CFHTTP CashRegister - Request Posted Item Info Times out
> Attempt 4: .......
>
> To try to do this with separate modules invoked through a an index.cfm
> "traffic cop" unnecessarily complicates the process.
>
> HTH
>
> Dick
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> --
> Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
> To Unsubscribe visit
> http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists&body=lists/cf_talk or
> send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with 'unsubscribe' in
> the body.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
> Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
> To Unsubscribe visit
http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists&body=lists/cf_talk or
send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with 'unsubscribe' in
the body.
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
To Unsubscribe visit
http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists&body=lists/cf_talk or
send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with 'unsubscribe' in
the body.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
To Unsubscribe visit
http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists&body=lists/cf_talk or send a
message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with 'unsubscribe' in the body.
