Here, for your entertainment, are more anti-fusebox ramblings:
> it's not really a question of it's good or bad, it's a
> question of what is it missing? I've seen a ton of Fusebox
> code with everything you've mentioned below.
I'd argue that it's not a question of good or bad, but rather what's it best
suited for? I think that Fusebox is a perfectly good methodology if:
1. your application's complexity is centralized within CF, and
2. one of your primary concerns is using standalone applications as modules
within other applications
For the kinds of applications we build, that's not our concern. We find
that, for our applications, a simple directory structure is suitable for
file organization, and that we're better off moving most of the complexity
out of CF into something else. If we were building certain types of
applications, we might use Fusebox. But we're not, and we think that, for
the applications we build, Fusebox adds more complexity rather than making
things easier.
> It ROCKS for Frames, here is a presentation on it:
> http://www.fusebox.org/Files/presentations/FuseboxandFrames.ppt
I went ahead and read this. It didn't do too much for me. Although, I'll be
the first to admit that very few Powerpoint presentations stand alone well -
they tend to require a speaker to "fill in the blanks".
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]
