This discussion seems to be what people expect developers to know, I have
worked in many different companies coding CF. All that matters to me is that
I know I can code, I can understand methodologies when is the best to use
and when its not. I looked at fusebox nealry 2 years ago I think it was, and
looked at the way things were done. Now I don't like the way things are
handled in Fusebox, but that didn't mean that I didn't see some benefits in
its approach.
In the long run I ended up deriving my own methodology, it allows me to code
quicker than I could do in fusebox. I choose not to use fusebox, that is my
choice. And from what I have read on the mailing groups there aren't too
many bright coders out there anyway, I mean there is enough documentation on
functions from allaire and people still can not understand simple functions
and their purpose, if these people can not comprehend this simple fact how
on earth are they really going to understand Fusebox or any other
methodology that may be adapted.
Its not how you achieve it, its how you really code the problem (the logic)
that is more important and the sooner people realise that if you wish to
work in the backend systems development you need to know more than how
fusebox works, you need a full understanding of how to program and adapt
when the need arises.
regards
Andrew Scott
ANZ eCommerce Centre
* Ph 9273 0693
* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-----Original Message-----
From: Heath Lord [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 21 September 2000 04:53
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: RE: Fusebox [CF-Talk]
I'm wondering what kind of a response this is...
I'd hazard a guess that you have no idea how much experience some of us have
in ColdFusion. These kinds of blanket statements are usually proven wrong.
I've worked with fusebox, but I prefer not to. I know how to do it if I
need to work with it, but I don't like to. That's like saying that everyone
must write all of their documents in calligraphy because it looks better.
However, it, like fusebox takes a lot longer to do.
Heath Lord
-----Original Message-----
From: Karl Simanonok [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2000 1:17 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Fusebox [CF-Talk]
>So far all of the people that are not fans of fusebox simply do not
know how
>to use it and have spent no time reading the documentation or
researching
>its implementation. Do any of you have any real problems with fusebox?
I have used fusebox for several large projects, mainly because clients
have heard of it and without really understanding it they insist on
their application being built with it. On the plus side, if I had to
fix or enhance somebody else's code I would prefer that it be written
fusebox-style, just to help me more easily track what templates do what
in a complex application that I did not write. The same goes for
working with other developers on the same project (but only if it's a
very complex project). That is the only slight advantage I have been
able to determine. The downside is that it slows development time
because of extra logic that must be incorporated into index.cfm and
because the debugger reports most errors as occurring in index.cfm.
Fusebox probably slightly reduces performance because every template is
CFINCLUDEd within CFSWITCH/CFCASE logic in index.cfm, but I haven't gone
to the trouble of measuring performance explicitly in two otherwise
identical fusebox and non-fusebox applications so I don't know how much.
The thing I like least about the fusebox specification is the really
stupid filenaming system which scatters related modules away from each
other in a directory view (qryCustomerInfo.cfm and qryPrecincts.cfm are
not likely to be related except by their general function of containing
queries; it's far more helpful to name templates by functional groups
like CustomerList.cfm, CustomerEdit.cfm, and CustomerUpdate.cfm).
I think fusebox has its greatest value in large applications which are
being built by multiple developers simultaneously, as long as you ignore
the fusebox filenaming system which negates any advantages. For small
applications (perhaps two dozen templates or fewer) there's no advantage
I can see. Hopefully the filenaming convention will be improved as
fusebox evolves into a more mature programming methodology.
Regards,
Karl Simanonok
Advanta Solutions, Inc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
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.
