Dave,
You've stepped on a land mine there ;)
I agree with your arguments. We have been developing a version of the three
tiered (display/logic/db) model that Microsoft talks about in their DNA
architecture. To date it has been a highly successful model for us and at
this point I couldn't see replacing it for anything.
Duane
eMPower Project Manager
Ektron, Inc
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dave Watts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2000 10:40 AM
> To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> Subject: RE: [CF-Talk] RE: Ben Forta, I call on thee (was: What is
> Fusebox)
>
>
> > Is there *anyone* who doesn't like Fusebox!? Certainly seems
> > that way..
>
> Sure there is. Personally, I don't use Fusebox, and I'm unlikely to use it
> for future projects. I don't know that I'd say I don't "like" it, but it
> certainly doesn't fit within my development process, nor that of Fig Leaf.
>
> Fusebox, like any other methodology, contains certain goals, and as a
> result, certain limitations. Fusebox is aimed at building CF-centric
> applications which are database independent and modular. That all sounds
> good, right? Not necessarily.
>
> 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.
>
> In summary, for us, it would make our applications more complex than they
> have to be, and provide little or no benefit. Does this mean that
> Fusebox is
> "bad"? Of course not. If it suits the kind of development you do - if its
> goals are also your goals - then it's the methodology for you. If
> not, maybe
> it isn't.
>
> You might respond that it's the only methodology out there, or that it's
> better than others with which you're familiar. This doesn't matter. You're
> better off building your own methodology, one step at a time,
> than adopting
> something which doesn't fit you. You'll simply constrict your own work.
>
> Finally, no matter how much you like or dislike Fusebox, it's just a
> methodology. It's not the answer to world hunger, it's not a
> dessert topping
> or a floor wax. You can write good, maintainable code using
> Fusebox (again,
> if that's the kind of application you're building) or you can write an
> unmaintainable mess using Fusebox. A methodology can't save you from poor
> coding, and, despite the appeal of a common "standard", you
> shouldn't use it
> unless it'll work for your applications.
>
> Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
> http://www.figleaf.com/
> voice: (202) 797-5496
> fax: (202) 797-5444
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------
> 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.
