> My 2 cents on Fusebox here, in 6 months of using this I've discovered:
>
> 1) Development takes slightly longer, but any expert
> developer won't feel a difference
An expert developer might not find Fusebox to be a useful organizational
method for their code, either.
> 2) New functions later on become so much easier to build
> (just a new fuse)
If by "new functions" you mean additional application modules, people have
been organizing applications into modules long before Fusebox existed, and
will continue to do so long after anyone can remember Fusebox, or CF.
The biggest problem with building new functionality into an application
isn't the organization of CFML scripts, but the limitations of the existing
data schema, and the potential costs of changing that data schema.
> 3) Modifications to existing stuff is easier (usually just
> building a new fuse or swapping an include)
I fail to see how it's easier to read the index.cfm file to find what file
to change, then open and change that file, than it is to simply open a
single file, find the section that needs to be changed, and change it.
> 4) Graphics people that are CF Illiterate find it easier to
> build around Cold Fusion (they even claim they can understand
> the code in a display page...whooaaa....)
We haven't had any graphics integration issues to date, so this hasn't been
a concern for us.
> 5) Speed of an application is barely slower...usually the
> extra CFINCLUDE's take some extra processing time, but nothing
> significant, and good servers are cheap....
My complaints with Fusebox aren't driven by performance issues. I suspect
there's little difference in performance, all other things being equal,
except that Fusebox developers might be less likely to partition their
application logic, which may negatively affect performance.
> 6) Apps seem to turn out smaller, granted it's easier to
> recycle more code and sharing variables globally is much easier
I don't think Fusebox apps are smaller, or especially larger, than
non-Fusebox apps. I don't think it's any easier to recycle code - if you
write reusable code in modules, they're reusable, whether you're using
Fusebox or not. I don't think it's any easier to share variables globally,
either. I don't see how it could be any easier than simply declaring
constants in application.cfm or using the Application scope.
> Anybody dare try and contest this?
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]
