Living in California, where it's 11:50. Although I do have to get up awfully early to take public transportation to Berkeley, so I should be going to bed soon.
At 02:25 AM 4/30/02 -0400, you wrote: >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
