I think that when a fuse breaks it makes it all that much more easier
because you have a 1 2 3 step to go through and find out what is wrong and
how to fix it. Debugging is a skill set all its own that if is not properly
used you WILL have trouble with debugging a fusebox app. But all in all the
extra layer helps to have multiple programmers in the application in the
same time. I think that there is something to be said for the fact that if
you have someone new working in Fusebox it will be a bit harder then if
there is someone experienced on the project
Bill Wheatley
Director of Development
Allaire Certified ColdFusion Developer
AEPS INC
Allaire ColdFusion Consulting Partner
www.aeps.com
www.aeps2000.com
954-472-6684 X303
ICQ: 417645
----- Original Message -----
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2000 1:17 PM
Subject: RE: Fusebox
> Amen to that, i have been using fusebox for a while now, and my opinion is
that it is another layer of stuff on top of what you already have to do.
> I think i would p[ersonally tone down the fusebox methodology myself, it
needs to be alot less complicated to trully be a catch all solution.
> When the fuse breaks its maddening, and is just another layer to run
through to fix stuff.
> And i don't buy the whole makes it easier to bring in other programmers,
because almost all of them will have to learn fusebox and the particular way
its used where they are working.
>
> I still like the idea of a methodology, im just not sold on fusebox
>
> MikeC
>
>
>
> > ** Original Subject: RE: Fusebox
> > ** Original Sender: C Frederic Valone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > ** Original Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2000 12:08:22 -0500
>
> > ** Original Message follows...
>
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Paid Sponsorship ~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Get Your Own Dedicated Win2K Server! Instant Activation for $99/month w/Free Setup
from SoloServer PIII600 / 128 MB RAM / 20 GB HD / 24/7/365 Tech Support Visit
SoloServer, https://secure.irides.com/clientsetup.cfm.
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
