Just to play the devil's advocate here, a system without technical documentation is a
poorly written system to begin with. It doesn't matter at that point HOW it was
written.
---mark
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Warrick
Phone: (714) 547-5386
Efax.com Fax: (801) 730-7289
Personal Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Personal URL: http://www.warrick.net
Business Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Business URL: http://www.fusioneers.com
ICQ: 346566
--------------------------------------------------------------
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris Martin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, December 22, 2000 8:36 AM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: RE: Fusebox
>
>
> I can sympathize with this. Our company bought a Forums package for our
> site. Written entirely in fusebox, its a great package and we've
> never had
> any problems, but when it came time to go through everything and
> familiarize
> our developers with the code, it was an exercise in futility. It
> seems that
> no page actually has any native code in it, the whole thing is made up of
> cfincludes, referencing other templates. IT just seems a little
> bit on the
> ridiculous side to write 300 odd 1k templates and cfinclude them in every
> single page. It was also a nightmare when we had to inventory
> all our code
> and queries and such. I wasted about a week trying to document everything
> before I finally gave up.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: C Frederic Valone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, December 22, 2000 11:12 AM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: Re: Fusebox
>
>
> Just to insert my two cents worth,
>
> I inherited a site that I have now see was supposed to follow the fusebox
> methodology. It has been a nightmare trying to figure out what they were
> trying to do.
>
> I may be wrong but it seems to me that too have an include on the
> index page
> point to an action file that simply points to a display file was not the
> proper implementation.
>
> Just from looking the fusebox docs over once I see that what I would think
> is the proper implementation of this would be more like this
> 1)an include on the index page that points to an action file that does and
> action
> 2)an include on the index page below the action file that points
> to a query
> file
> 3)an include on the index page below the query file that points
> to a display
> file that may show the results returned based on the action and
> query file.
> Am I correct in this?
>
> I will admit that the methodology is a good thing to have to
> structure code
> and make it easier for a new programmer to come in and see what
> is going on.
> However in this case the documentation was nearly nonexistant and the fact
> that some of the includes stayed within the directory structure and others
> did not made this application
> extremely hard to follow.
>
> I am not the only programmer here that felt the same way about this
> application. I am not saying that the methodology is wrong...quite the
> contrary it seems to be simple and expandable. I am saying that no matter
> what methodolgy someone uses, the results you get will depend on how well
> you understand what the methodology is doing, how
> well you document your work and how closely you follow the specs of the
> methodology.
>
> Thanks
> Frederic
>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at
http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
