> I just find it too bloated and unmanagable. I do agree that it adds a lot of code. However, assuming there is one person who looks after the fusebox side of things, it's actually only a few files that need worrying about.
You don't have to do all the qry, dsp, app etc side of things. I tend to only use the dsp and app types (and put queries that are used in more than one place in a qry file, which is not very often). The actual important files are: fbx_switch.cfm, fbx_circuits.cfm and fbx_settings.cfm and there really isn't a huge amount more than that (apart from layout, which is a designers responsibility anyway). > The concept is great and there are some cool ideas in there, > but I find as a whole it defeats the point of a framework > and methodology by being overly complex. For people or teams > that know fusebox sure it is better than no framework at all > and makes development easier. But for a developer who has > never seen it b4 and comes in to work on a project, it is a > nightmare to unravel that spagetti and figure out what does > what. I am talking primarily fb3 here. FB2 wasn't so bad. I > think fb3 is more a choice for an internal development team > to use or the self employed, rather than a company who gets > in consultants. It is complex if you try and re-write it and delve into the fusebox, but I have never needed to. As for teams, the time it takes to teach them fusebox is about 2 hours (average length of time before it "clicks") but it makes the whole team much more coordinated in how they code, and how their code links to other places. If you've come across spaghetti code, then that's not a fusebox problem, that's a bad coding problem. No methodology is perfect and no methodology is safe from bad programmers. > The one I use now is very simple although it has scope to add > as much additional functionality and bloat as you like if u > feel so inclined and I have managed to teach it to complete > cf muppets who I know would have not coped with fb3. Which is > what I need as other people have to use the code and when I > outsource work other developers have to code in the framework. Would you care to share it with us? I am sure that there are many people who would love to hear what the methodology is, and how it works. If only for comparison and further ideas for other people on this list. At the very least with fusebox, there is a developer base and it works. Paul -- ** Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/dev%40lists.cfdeveloper.co.uk/ To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For human help, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
