I was involved in the community right up until they started on FB3, when I disagreed with the way things were going and the way FB3 was developed/documented. It all got a little too religious and capitalistic all at the same time.
So I'm using a version of XFB commonly know as tazboxfusabix189265a57.352. In other words, over the years working with various people including Taz, we have used and abused the original fusebox concepts and tweaked them to bring it in line with the current version of CF (I've yet to meddle with the method to make CFMX specific changes) without getting away from the original concept of compartmentalised code, that is easy to manage, debug and read whether you have experience in the latest verion of FB or not.
I was gonna write more, but it started turning into rant....
Just to say, FB was intended to help introduce people to ColdFusion best practices and meet the four points in Paul's email. (I'm not sure it was me that said all that, but hey I'll take credit... ;oD )
Incidently, before anyone says anything about all those includes not being "best practice", well actually it did used to be. Large pages of code (which are inherently bad to read/maintain) used to take ages to be interpreted and compiled into p-code, because every single line had to interpreted each time the page was accessed by a user. By using cfincludes for segments of code, you reduce the number of lines that are interpreted (cfinclude is only one line). cfincludes only occurs if the conditions of a surrounding if or case are met, so you quite drastically reduce the amount of code being interpreted according to what the application actually needs to do. As a side effect you've started on your way to code reuse by extracting key components into seperate reusable files.
Of course, this is busted a bit with CFMX, cos it likes to compile the code up into classes the first time it reads a page. This includes all cfincluded files... This means that with FB what you get is a sluggish hit the first time that a page is accessed, but after that no difference to putting all your code in one page.
I'll stop there before I go well off on a tangent....
Stephen
Stephen Pope wrote:
I'm curious just how many people on this list use fusebox ?
Personally I hate the thing, I like the ideas involved and but I prefer to adapt the methodology to my own code in my own way. I'm not having a go at fusebox coders (although I do kinda think Mach II is a bit hilarious) I just think that I have found some people and companies that hate Coldfusion just for the fact that they have only used /see it in relation to Fusebox ! Just wondered how much people on this list used it and if they have always done fusebox or moved to it after learning CF initially.
Just being curious I guess hehe :�)
/me awaits the flames
Stephen
-----Original Message-----
From: Damian Watson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 24 October 2003 10:53
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [ cf-dev ] Any fusecoders on the list?
aaaaaarrrgggg my brain's fused
I thought fusebox was meant to be simple ;0)
----- Original Message ----- From: "Adam Reynolds" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2003 10:48 AM
Subject: RE: [ cf-dev ] Any fusecoders on the list?
I've actually found that globals is not that good an idea as it makes maintenance a pain.
If you do require includes from another fuse, then work the path out and include (../security/queries/qry_member_details_select.cfm)
BUT
There is no hard and fast rule.
What I would say is that if your fuse requires functions from another
fuse,
then you should maybe consider them to be sub fuses and not seperate independent fuses.
The other option is to copy the files into the fuse. At least you'll know the code will work exactly as planned within that fuse and any changes to the other fuse will not impact other fuses.
Adam
-----Original Message----- From: Ellwood [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 24 October 2003 10:25 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ cf-dev ] Any fusecoders on the list?
True, I hadn't thought of that. If I wish to drag my circuit to another application then it will fail because of the globals being missing.
This is why I asked the question in the first place. Thanks for your valuable input I will rethink my strategy. Although I am currently wondering if there will ever be a perfect solution or just a best compromise.
Regards
Ellis
-- ** 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]
-- ** 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]
