well stated
>From: "Jones, Matt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: CF-Talk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: RE: fusebox style: too much disk access?
>Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 17:41:59 -0500
>
>If the code is logical, organized, and well written, it shouldn't matter if
>you utilize the Fusebox methodology or not, fusebox assists people with
>accomplishing these things. If you do it without using the fusebox
>methodology, that doesn't make you wrong. Any approach to programming that
>is not logical, organized, and well written is a pain to debug, maintain,
>and update, regardless of whether it is in fusebox or not. The fact that
>so
>many fuseboxers take offense to non-fuseboxers and vice versa is rather
>disturbing. We should strive to forward ourselves by not getting into nit
>picky arguments amongst ourselves about matters of style, and focus on
>helping each other with the problems that we all run into.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Peter Theobald [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>Sent: Friday, October 20, 2000 3:33 PM
>To: CF-Talk
>Subject: RE: fusebox style: too much disk access?
>
>
>Since we're talking about it... I always thought that breaking up an
>application by "type of activity in the file" like dsp for display and qry
>for query didn't make sense. I want to break up my application by logical
>"object" like a user profile, an inventory item, etc..
>
>
>At 11:19 AM 10/20/00 -0700, Nat Papovich wrote:
> >What-evah, Dave. Fusebox kicks ass for the very implementation you
>mention.
> >COMs can be called from a single file (using a new prefix
>com_filename.cfm
> >if you want), then whenever you need that COM, you cfinclude that file.
> >
> >Maybe it would help us if you made a distinction between application
>logic
> >encapsulation and business rules encapsulation. If you do both within
> >COM/EJB, then you practically don't even need CF for anything other than
> >CFOUTPUT. If however, you want application logic in COM, but still want
> >business rules in CF, then Fusebox is great. No?
> >
> >It seems to me that if you remove application and business logic from CF,
> >then a structured application architecture (like Fusebox) becomes less of
>a
> >necessity. What kind of CF architecture do you guys use in EJB/COM-heavy
> >apps?
> >
> >Nat Papovich
> >ICQ 32676414
> >"I'm for truth no matter who tells it."
> >-Malcolm X, 1965
> >
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Dave Watts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> >Sent: Friday, October 20, 2000 10:12 AM
> >To: CF-Talk
> >Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> >Subject: RE: fusebox style: too much disk access?
> >
> >
> >> > I'm not a Fusebox fan, by any measure,
> >>
> >> Why not? What would need to be changed to make you a fan?
> >
> >I'd have to be working on applications where the complex logic is stored
>in
> >CF, instead of in other application tiers. I don't want to fuel another
>"Is
> >Fusebox good or bad" thread, but I don't think it fits well with the type
>of
> >applications that we focus on here at Fig Leaf, which typically have lots
>of
> >client-side complexity, like frames, JavaScript, Flash, etc. and have
>lots
> >of application logic within other application tiers on the server-side,
>like
> >within stored procedures or COM/EJB.
> >
> >On the other hand, if I was working on an application with all of its
> >complexity within CF, I'd probably like Fusebox quite a bit. Once you
>move
> >most of that complexity from CF to other tiers, though, Fusebox doesn't
>do
> >much for you, in my opinion.
> >
> >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]/
> >Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists or send
>a
> >message with 'unsubscribe' in the body to
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>---------------------
> >Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
> >Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists or send
>a
>message with 'unsubscribe' in the body to
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Peter Theobald, Chief Technology Officer
>LiquidStreaming http://www.liquidstreaming.com
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Phone 1.212.545.1232 x204 Fax 1.212.545.0938
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>--------------------
>Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
>Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists or send a
>message with 'unsubscribe' in the body to
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
>Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists or send a
>message with 'unsubscribe' in the body to
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists or send a message
with 'unsubscribe' in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
