This conversation is always the oddest topic. I am sure the day you walk
into Figleaf you are handed the Rig Veda of methodology standards. Anyone
that has been to a conference and heard Dave or whoever from Figleaf speak
must concede they have their shit completely together. However, if you are
just beginning to develop or are beginning to build a team or unhappy with
your present methodology it is not going to kill anyone to research
prevailing methodologies. This isn't rocket science, the docs are simple to
read and understand. Read them, if you can benefit from it use them. If
not find one that suites you. The reason why I find this odd, is because I
have yet to read any of the naysayers write "I hate fusebox, go to this link
and look at my methods and standards because they are way better. Derision
is easy, if you are going to knock something, atleast give all the people
reading it an alternative.
Karl, straight out, you have no idea what you are talking about.
>It slightly increases development time
I cannot think of one person that programs in fusebox that would agree with
this. Perhaps your development time was slower because you are not used to
programming in fusebox. I am sure that if I used whatever legendary, widely
used, published methodology you use, I would have a slower time developing
in it because though I might understand it, I would not be used to
programming in it.
>obfuscates CF debugging
completely not the case, and please tell me you incorporate structured error
handling and don't rely solely on CF's debugging.
>necessitates superfluous code
The whole point of fusebox is code reusability and non superfluous code
>processing time by routing every page call through an index.cfm
WTF?
>We now only use it when clients insist that they want their applications
built around it (usually they've heard a little about >Fusebox and think
it's cutting-edge so they want it without really understanding it).
Who are your clients? I have built everything from porn to international
financial institutions and my clients have never even heard of fusebox. If
any, the only buzz words they know are Java, CF, Broadvision, Websphere. I
have never had a client ever ask me which methodology I use in any of those
applications.
Dave,
>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.
It might not be easier if you are using a different methodology, however,
all things being equal I have found application logic easier to explain in
fusebox as each application and subapplication has a roadmap which is the
index.cfm
>> Anybody dare try and contest this?
>Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
>http://www.figleaf.com/
>voice: (202) 797-5496
>fax: (202) 797-5444
Priceless!
Sean Renet
----- Original Message -----
From: "BORKMAN Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2000 9:27 PM
Subject: RE: fusebox
> Hi Dave,
>
> Of course you are right. If you have excellent methodologies,
> architectures, and standards in place already, then maybe you have no use
> for FuseBox. FuseBox, as you point out, is neither a complete
methodology,
> nor a complete architecture, nor a complete standard. It is just a bunch
of
> techniques that has been hammered out by a large community of CF
developers,
> who want more people to keep adding their help and suggestions. It will
> obviously offer most benefit to people whose code is all over the place,
and
> basically have no idea, but I can assure you that it helps out CF_GODs
like
> me too ;-)
>
> FuseBox includes:
> 1: Suggestions about methodology
> 2: Suggestions about CF architecture (not usually about data design, etc)
> 3: Suggestions about roughly-optimal code 'factoring' (it's definitely NOT
> about breaking code into meaningless 'atomic' pieces)
> 4: Suggestions about making mundane coding decisions (like file naming)
> basically automatic,
> 5: Suggestions for engaging your expertise with the INTERESTING parts of
the
> problem
> 6: etc
>
> By virtue of its large user community, its open source ethos, and the kind
> of debate we are now engaged in, FuseBox gets better and better, and has
now
> reached a substantial level of maturity.
>
> Nobody is suggesting that FuseBox should or could replace any
organization's
> existing Software Engineering methodologies. But hey, it doesn't cost a
> single cent, so you can happily take on board 10% of the suggestions and
> throw out the rest, with no loss to anyone. I haven't yet seen a
high-level
> methodology that's incompatible with FuseBox.
>
> The basic point is that FuseBox works. Many, many developers can testify
to
> that. It is not, however, perfect, nor does anyone claim that it is.
It's
> just a whole bunch of people working together, trying to do things in
> roughly the same way, resulting in a consistency of code that benefits
> EVERYONE, and agreeing to help improve the way we are all doing things.
>
> So no matter what proportion of the FuseBox techniques you decide to use,
it
> helps you and us and all CF developers, if you come along WITH us, and
help
> fix up the things you don't like. Believe me, there is plenty of heated
> debate going on all the time over on the FuseBox list.
>
> See you there, neh?
>
> Lee (Bjork) Borkman
> http://bjork.net ColdFusion Tags by Bjork
>
>
>
> IMPORTANT NOTICE:
> This e-mail and any attachment to it is intended only to be read or used
by
> the named addressee. It is confidential and may contain legally
privileged
> information. No confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by any
> mistaken transmission to you. If you receive this e-mail in error, please
> immediately delete it from your system and notify the sender. You must
not
> disclose, copy or use any part of this e-mail if you are not the intended
> recipient. The RTA is not responsible for any unauthorised alterations to
> this e-mail or attachment to it.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------
> 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]
