Well hell let's integrate the two and call it "FLiPBox" and be
done with it!!! :-)
Douglas Brown
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
----- Original Message -----
From: "Hal Helms" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 11:41 PM
Subject: RE: Fusebox (was: I like CFMX)
> The philosopher/mathemetician Bertrand Russell once told his
> collaborator, Alfred North Whitehead: "This issue cannot be
resolved.
> The problem is that I am simple-minded and you are
muddle-headed."
>
> Dave, I think what my muddle-headed friend, Steve, means is that
the
> Fusebox community has produced an architectural framework
("Fusebox")
> and a methodology ("FLiP") that are quite independent of each
other.
> Because we only recently made the separation of terms (for the
excellent
> reasons you outline), some people say "Fusebox" when they're
talking
> about FLiP and the other way 'round.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dave Watts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2002 2:32 AM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: RE: Fusebox (was: I like CFMX)
>
>
> > Sure, terminology is important but it is far too often
> > treated as the most important thing and it's not. If
> > you said:
> >
> > "hand me the hammer"
> > vs
> > "hand me that tool with the wooden handle and the metal
> > smasher for banging nails"
> >
> > I'm human, i'd figure it out.
>
> That's fine, conversationally. Scale that up across a larger and
larger
> group, and you'd have bigger and bigger problems. The If nothing
else,
> you'd get really tired of saying "hand me that tool with the
wooden
> handle and the metal smasher for banging nails" over and over
again. The
> dumb literalists in the group wouldn't understand that you meant
to also
> include the tool with the fiberglass hammer, and the tack
driver, and so
> on.
>
> > The name "hammer" is not the important part. My association
> > to your description is the important part, terminology just
> > shortens that description. Some people call Fusebox a
> > methodology because it's a method of building their software,
> > fine. Whereas others call it a framework, because the core
> > files offer a framework for managing their code, that's fine
> > too. No one is going to get a full definition of Fusebox
> > from a single word, so why get so hung up on that?
>
> This sounds like the "Humpty Dumpty" argument - a word means
exactly
> what you want it to mean, no more and no less! The problem here
is that,
> if someone asks you about your methodology, and you tell them
about your
> framework, everyone will be confused, because they are different
> concepts. If you want a word to mean everything, it'll mean
nothing in
> the end. Fusebox - it's a dessert topping AND a floor wax!
>
> I'm hung up on that, as you put it, because in my experience so
many CF
> developers think that as long as they adhere to the Fusebox
"standard",
> to the extent that it is a standard, all their design problems
are
> solved, and everything else is a "simple matter of coding". Of
course,
> also in my experience, this turns out not to be the case.
>
> Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
> http://www.figleaf.com/
> voice: (202) 797-5496
> fax: (202) 797-5444
>
>
__________________________________________________________________
____
> Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists
and provide more resources for the community.
http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.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
>
______________________________________________________________________
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/[email protected]/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
