Jennifer, I'm unclear about the reference to URL vars, which Fusebox is completely agnostic about. It does view the application as a single entity that responds to different method requests, though. Those method requests come to the fusebox as variables. Is that what you don't like?
-----Original Message----- From: Jennifer Larkin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2002 1:50 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: Fusebox (was: I like CFMX) Lets assume that it teaches people incorrect definitions for standard terminology. This is Matt's viewpoint. Since I am familiar with Matt, I can tell you that the guy *does* know what he's talking about. He doesn't always say it in the most understandable or helpful way, nor does he explain things that he thinks you should already know, but he knows what he's talking about. So for the sake of answering your question, let's assume that none of us question the validity of that part of Matt's stance. That does affect it's quality and may affect it's usefulness. You see, when you learn the weird definition, you aren't able to communicate effectively with people who know the standard definition. If two people on the same project are unable to communicate, that does affect productivity, making it less useful than it would be if it used the correct definitions. In this case, knowing the standard definitions might help you become a better programmer, which means that you are being done a disservice by being told the wrong definition. Again, it would therefore be more useful to you if it gave you the correct definition. It certainly doesn't change how FuseBox works, but that doesn't preclude a change in usefulness. And about getting around the url variable problem. The way I described, I don't have to get around the URL variable problem but I still get the usefulness. Creating what I see as a problem and then solving it is not as good as not creating the problem in the first place. At 12:49 AM 4/30/02 -0400, you wrote: >So whether some people call it a methodology, others a framework, >others a >standard, are you saying that changes it's >usefulness? > >Steve > >Matt Liotta wrote: > > > Since I first saw Fusebox, its web site as well as some of its > > proponents like Steve and Nat have termed it as among other things, > > an architecture, an application framework, a methodology, and more > > recently a standard. About the only term remotely related to Fusebox > > is methodology. > > > > -Matt > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Hal Helms [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 9:24 PM > > > To: CF-Talk > > > Subject: RE: Fusebox (was: I like CFMX) > > > > > > I certainly wouldn't want to do that any more than you would, > > > Matt. > > I'm > > > not sure what you're referring to, though. > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2002 12:16 AM > > > To: CF-Talk > > > Subject: RE: Fusebox (was: I like CFMX) > > > > > > > > > Indeed, more power to you for helping people. But, do you have to > > > use common programming terms incorrectly? Showing people > > > techniques is one thing, but to show a technique and pass it off > > > as something it is not, certainly isn't helpful the person or the > > > community in general. > > > > > > -Matt > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Hal Helms [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > > Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 9:12 PM > > > > To: CF-Talk > > > > Subject: RE: Fusebox (was: I like CFMX) > > > > > > > > I agree there's no formal specification, Dave. We're all working > > > > developers and though people contribute enormously to spreading > > > Fusebox, > > > > we haven't created a formal spec. That may come at some point, > > > > but > > > most > > > > of our efforts are focused on helping people learn use Fusebox > > > > to achieve successful software projects. > > > > > > > > In response to your question to Steve, Tim Heald asked us to > > > > respond > > > to > > > > some Fusebox talk on the CF-List. I'm happy to try to help, but > > > > I > > know > > > > > > > that some folks have an animus against Fusebox that I can't help > > with. > > > > > > > In short, if I can offer info, I will but I respect your time > > > > too > > much > > > > > > > to waste it trying to convert you. Besides, my take on this is > > > > that we're all in this together, Fuseboxers and non-Fuseboxers > > > > alike. We share a common goal and a common love for creative > > > > programming. A > > lot > > > of > > > > people have found Fusebox helpful; some people don't. Let a > > > > thousand flowers bloom, as the Chinese say. > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Dave Watts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > > Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 11:54 PM > > > > To: CF-Talk > > > > Subject: RE: Fusebox (was: I like CFMX) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There are two books coming out on Fusebox that should help > > > > > > > to alleviate the lack of available information on exactly > > > > > > > what Fusebox is. John Quarto and I wrote one called > > > > > > > "Discovering Fusebox 3" and Jeff Peters/Nat Papovich wrote > > > > > > > one for New > > > Riders. > > > > > > > That will help people who want to find out for themselves > > > > > > > what Fusebox is all about. > > > > > > > > > > > > Well, hi, Hal! > > > > > > > > > > > > That's nice and all, but where's the definitive > > > > > > specification? I don't have to shell out for that, do I? It > > > > > > doesn't have to be stimulating reading, it just has to be a > > > > > > specification. > > > > > > > > > > http://www.fusebox.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=learn.specificatio > > > > > n > > > > > > > > > > CF and PHP are there, JSP is coming pretty soon. > > > > > > > > Well, hi to you too Steve! What did they do, ring the alarm bell > > > > at fusebox.org? > > > > > > > > I went there, before posting the previous post, and there's > > > > nothing there which is a specification. There are some > > > > implementations, > > > there's > > > > some documentation, but no specification in the formal sense. > > > > > > > > Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ > > > > voice: (202) 797-5496 > > > > fax: (202) 797-5444 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com 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
