ahhh just go get a crisp cold mountain dew and another piece of pizza and you'll be fine....
Douglas Brown Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim Heald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 11:35 PM Subject: RE: Fusebox (was: I like CFMX) > Damnit your C level. you can be late for work. I on the other hand have to > be in NLT 9 or I get in trouble. Something tells me you'll win :) > > Tim Heald > ACP/CCFD > Application Development > www.schoollink.net > > -----Original Message----- > From: Douglas Brown [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2002 2:40 AM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: Re: Fusebox (was: I like CFMX) > > > I just want to see who gets the last word in :-D > > > > > Douglas Brown > Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Tim Heald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 11:25 PM > Subject: RE: Fusebox (was: I like CFMX) > > > > I do have to say this, irregardless of what "side" you may be on > where this > > is concerned, I have to admire the dedication that all of you > have for > > ColdFusion. Here it is 3 am in the morning, and still going > strong. I know > > I am working on the MM XML Feed thing using CFMX. What, aside > from this > > conversation keeps the rest of you up this evening? > > > > Tim Heald > > ACP/CCFD > > Application Development > > www.schoollink.net > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Hal Helms [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2002 2:23 AM > > To: CF-Talk > > Subject: RE: Fusebox (was: I like CFMX) > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > __________________________________________________________________ > ____ > > 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 > > > > > __________________________________________________________________ ____ > 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 > ______________________________________________________________________ This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for dependable ColdFusion Hosting. 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
