Hi Peter, Where's the project management, your first cut shouldn't be done until specifications are signed off, anything else is a change request and has a $ value.
Save yourself time and your company $'s by at least exploring PMBok project management framework, otherwise you will always have a pain point. I worked in Fed Gov for a number of years, starting back in 04, we went from CF5 to MX, adopted the Mach-II framework, had a custom built (by us) totally awesome CMS, we pushed something like 13 websites fully functional fully dynamic out the door in 18 months. By the time I left there I had the ability to receive a CSS skin from a designer and have a fully dynamic, full functionality website ready for system test, UAT and deployment in 2 hours. OO... in particular MVC is the way to go with CF IMHO. Example website built in 2 hours is http://www.energyefficiencyopportunities.gov.au Because the sites were all built on a vanilla spec, it was plug and play, to get it through test quick I would highlight any changed functionality and that is all they would test, never had a fail. Cheers, R On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 6:23 PM, Peter Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I get there is a use case for passive code gen, but for me it's pretty > limited. Assume only 20% of effort is building site (compared to > maintenance) and 20% is building the first cut with 80% being making changes > to original version, the most it can do is speed up 4% of the app. It isn't > that much harder to do active code gen with rich metadata and allows you to > be way more productive over the entire lifecycle. Just a matter of learning > the principles and implementing the tooling. I usually find it's worth a day > or two to create usable tooling for active, full lifecycle code gen rather > than just using the wizards. > Best Wishes, > Peter > > On Jun 25, 2008, at 3:47 AM, Rae Buerckner wrote: > > Scenario > You're building an enterprise application for an existing > database > You have Flex 3 front ends > ColdFusion 8 backend! > > Install the ColdFusion extensions (free) for Flex Builder > Create a new > Flex project > Setup your CF setting in the Flex project > enable RDS > > You can now browse to any database CF can see, right click on a table > > select generate CFC's! > > Seconds later you have all your getters & setters, all your CRUD and all > your actionscript. > > 20 or so lines of MXML later you have your GUI > > Time to market is always the winner! > > R > > On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 5:41 PM, Peter Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > >> >> Personally I think the tooling in .net is the worst thing to happen to >> a good language. I like many of the language features in c#, but the >> patterns that the tooling supports (code behind, page controllers) >> just aren't as good as some of the best practice patterns in the Java >> world. Also, tooling will tend to generate code and the best code is >> the code that NOBODY writes and that doesn't exist. That is where >> frameworks come in by raising the level of abstraction. Right now I'm >> at a code gen conference with some of the Microsoft DSL tools team >> including Steve Cook and I'll see how it has improved since last year, >> but I don't feel that on balance the Microsoft tooling does more good >> than harm for building large, scalable enterprise apps. >> >> Best Wishes, >> Peter >> >> On Jun 25, 2008, at 2:37 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> >> > >> > I see you point that they (tools and frameworks) fill many of the same >> > needs. That is probably true of every language. >> > >> > But I disagree with the implication that a good tool is inherently >> > better than a good framework. The choice is much more pragmatic than >> > that: which option offers the best features, smoothest learning curve, >> > etc. >> > >> > Visual Studio is the clear winner in the .NET space and frameworks are >> > big in ColdFusion. >> > >> > Personally I'm happy to get my hands dirty with plumbing - I'm sure my >> > understanding of application design and development is the better for >> > it. >> > >> > Blair >> > >> > On 6/25/08, Scott Barnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> I'm sure that convo will yield a lot and provide little :) After >> >> spending >> >> some time look around for the past 5 years I've come to one sad >> >> conclusion >> >> and I'm sure it's not popular thinking.. Frameworks in coldfusion >> >> exist to >> >> compensate for lack of tooling, as if you have nothing to automate >> >> the >> >> plumbing you now have to write the automation to then keep the pieces >> >> manageable to connect. >> >> >> >> to answer this riddle, Imagine for a moment if everyone wrote .NET >> >> with >> >> notepad? as of today - where would it be tomorrow? >> >> >> >> ** >> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 9:31 PM, Barry Beattie < >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> > >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >>> >> >>> Barnes' thoughts (or similar) are being echoed over on the CFC Dev >> >>> list at the moment with people like Peter Bell, Sean Corfield, Brian >> >>> Kotek and our very own Mark Mandel, amongst others. >> >>> >> >>> >> http://groups.google.com/group/cfcdev/browse_thread/thread/2e90c0dbfecf5a59 >> >>> " Doubts about Best Practices" >> >>> >> >>> why was fusebox invented in the firstplace? to push people into >> >>> doing >> >>> something more than writing spaghetti code. but you gotta have an >> >>> idea >> >>> of how to fix it before you can fully appreciate the problem. Hence >> >>> the value of learning about design patterns. See the Donald Rumsfeld >> >>> quote at the bottom >> >>> >> >>> let me leave you with some quotes: >> >>> >> >>> ... two from Albert Einstein >> >>> >> >>> "Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more >> >>> violent. It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to >> >>> move >> >>> in the opposite direction." >> >>> - and - >> >>> "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." >> >>> >> >>> ... one I got reminded from by (of all people) Gary Menzel >> >>> >> >>> "Code for maintainance" >> >>> >> >>> ... and Donald Rumsfeld really sums it up >> >>> >> >>> "As we know, there are known knowns. There are things we know we >> >>> know. >> >>> We also know there are known unknowns. That is to say we know there >> >>> are some things we do not know. >> >>> But there are also unknown unknowns, The ones we don't know we don't >> >>> know." >> >>> >> >>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Regards, >> >> Scott Barnes >> >> http://www.mossyblog.com >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> > >> > > >> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "cfaussie" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cfaussie?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
