with fusebox is you make custom tags you can reuse your code, if you dont
use code reuseability dont blame it on the fusebox methodology =)
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 1:32 PM
Subject: RE: Fusebox
> aw hell even i can answer that Hal, from what i understand of cfobjects ,
its the only methodology that makes truly modular parts to your
applications.
> In fusebox its just written in a modular way, cfobjects contains the whole
thing in its own little world, which to me is what i call real modular
framework, it also makes reusability even easier i think.
> i suspect the best would be somewhere in between fusebox and cfobjects
>
> MikeC
>
>
> > ** Original Subject: RE: Fusebox
> > ** Original Sender: "Hal Helms" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > ** Original Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 18:35:07 -0500
>
> > ** Original Message follows...
>
> >
> > Yes, there's definitely that argument, Dave -- and it's a good one.
Someone
> > once posted a question on the CFObjects forum, "If you're going to do
OO,
> > what not just do Java?" I'm still waiting to hear a good answer.
> >
> > I think CFObjects can be a good bridge for folks moving from CFML to a
true
> > OO language such as Ruby or Java.
> >
> > Hal Helms
> > == See www.ColdFusionTraining.com for info on "Best Practices with
> > ColdFusion & Fusebox" training, Jan 22-25 ==
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----From: Dave Watts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Sunday, December 24, 2000 5:06 PM
> > To: CF-Talk
> > Subject: RE: Fusebox
> >
> >
> > > I agree with Hal. The major problem with CFObjects is that you
> > > have to tackle the additiona learning curve of an OO methodology,
> > > *and* the documentation/sample-apps leave a lot to be desired for
> > > a person new to the methodology. If CFO only had a like Hal hawking
> > > it, it'd get a much wider notice :)
> >
> > I'd argue that the major problem with CFObjects is something completely
> > different. I don't think tacking object-orientation onto CF - which is
> > pretty much a batch-processing environment - is such a great idea. If
you
> > want to write OO code, you'd be better served with an OO language.
> >
> > Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
> > http://www.figleaf.com/
> > voice: (202) 797-5496
> > fax: (202) 797-5444
> >
>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 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/[email protected]/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
