I'm sorry, but you are going to have to RTFM. I am not here to teach you how to program or basic CS concepts. If you don't understand those terms, that is fine, it won't stop you from being a CF developer. However, it will stop you from contributing to this debate.
-Matt > -----Original Message----- > From: Tim Heald [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 9:33 PM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: RE: Fusebox (was: I like CFMX) > > Ok Matt, > For the beginner my friend, in layman's terms. Seriously. I am > paying > attention, and I am never so close minded that I cannot be swayed, but > truth > be told I heard a bunch of buzzwords, and some stuff that I should > probably > know more about. > > Tim Heald > ACP/CCFD > Application Development > www.schoollink.net > > -----Original Message----- > From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2002 12:27 AM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: RE: Fusebox (was: I like CFMX) > > > Ok, off the top of my head... > > An architecture would provide: > * context for partitioning application at a macro level into > tiers > * transparent redundancy of tiers > * interfaces specific to each tier for application frameworks to > implement > * additional stuff depending on application > > An application framework would provide: > * abstract implementation of architecture interfaces > * library of concrete architecture interface implementations > * context for partitioning tier into components > * component infrastructure > * additional stuff depending on application > > -Matt > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Steve Nelson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 9:13 PM > > To: CF-Talk > > Subject: Re: Fusebox (was: I like CFMX) > > > > Sure, list it all. > > > > Steve > > > > Matt Liotta wrote: > > > > > What do you want? Want me to list everything I expect in an > architecture > > > and application framework to show that Fusebox provides known of > them? > > > You don't really need me for that. Go to Google and do a search on > > > software architecture and application frameworks. You will find an > > > amazing amount of infrastructure that Fusebox is no where near > > > providing. You may even discover the true definitions for some of > the > > > terms Fusebox has bastardized. > > > > > > -Matt > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Ken Wilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > > Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 8:56 PM > > > > To: CF-Talk > > > > Subject: RE: Fusebox (was: I like CFMX) > > > > > > > > >> So do tell, in detail if you please, what you find > > > > >> objectionable about it. > > > > > > > > > I don't use Fusebox because it does nothing for me. > > > > > > > > > > > > Uh huh. Most enlightening detail there Matt. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in ColdFusion and related topics. http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.cfm FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
