I almost hate to reply to this thread but i gotta throw in my two cents. we all know that fuse box is the attempt to OOP-ize CF so why not just look at it the same way as any other OOP language. it can be powerful if you have full command of the language and cumbersome if not by adding undue complexity where an experienced programmer would use a more direct and efficient built in feature i.e., proper use of includes, custom tags, cfx, and what not.
so i ask myself when defining a project, why use OOP libraries for something u could do with a scriptlet? if it's big enuff and you need fusebox, use it because it CAN be abbreviated and massaged to your liking. if not, take it easy on yourself and bill like ur using it :P "Joseph Thompson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 11/19/2001 03:41:36 PM Please respond to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: CF-Talk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> cc: Subject: Re: THE LATE GREAT FUSEBOX DEBATE Last week in Vancouver he specifically ducked backing any one methodology although he did say a) you should use one b)A methodology is no good if it requires that you "re learn" everything you know Being a big fan of the rollover form (and "hating" the form-->action-->display approach) I found Fusebox a real joy. I didn't have to relearn anything as I always wrote my forms "assuming" there would be default values. Now i just CFPARAM my values to the Attributes scope. That file, and the query files live seperate so when someone decides to "mod" the dbase you just need to "mod" those two files. . > I am really curious about Ben Forta's opinion of Fusebox? Has anyone > been able to corner him into saying anything one way or the other? > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
