Actually, I find some of the "nit picking" productive, because I'd like to know what
is the value some people find in some of the Fusebox conventions that I don't find
valuable. Perhaps I don't realize a situation where some convention comes in really
handy.
But we digress too much... off to the FuseBox list for more of this...
At 05:41 PM 10/20/00 -0500, Jones, Matt wrote:
>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]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
