Russ I avoided fusebox like the plague as well until we used on a high profile government site. When we used it, we used it correctly and also followed some of the better practices which had evolved over time in the community. However on other projects I have seen the dreaded "my take on fusebox" i.e. not used correctly or with any best practices and it has had horrendous results. The key thing here is using the tool correctly. For example the code mentioned would not be present in a application built by a competent programmer as they would be aware that the logic should be removed and only the version of the core file which is needed should be included. I agree with Simon in part - it has made it easier for sub-standard coders to put together some crap and there is a major misconception by many and that fusebox alone will make you write good code which I have seen with my own eyes is not the case!!! This is my number one issue with fusebox. However I imagine its like this with many frameworks - You can write shit code with struts, Turbine, velocity, spring etc. The difference being that there are standard/better ways to achieve things which are documented in these communities - e.g. struts there is some guidance and community standards on how best to apply validation and more importantly its widely adopted. With fusebox people have been told for years that they can take what they like and leave the rest and this has spawned a thousand different variations of it - this has also been a major problem. The whole point of using a so called standard framework is that you are supposed to be able to approach a project and be familiar with the framework - in reality this is not always the case. Kola
>> -----Original Message----- >> From: Snake Hollywood [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Sent: 04 February 2004 13:03 >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Subject: RE: [ cf-dev ] cfstandards...coming soon! >> >> One thing I always wondered, why all that code that checks which version >> of >> CF it's running on, surely this is pointless? >> Your not gonna write an app on CFMX and then deploy it on CF4.5, and all >> those version checks wont stop the developer using tags and functions >> specific to a version of CF. >> >> >> >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: Simon Horwith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> > Sent: 04 February 2004 12:46 >> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> > Subject: RE: [ cf-dev ] cfstandards...coming soon! >> > >> > >> > Three remarks/replies: >> > >> > "As to fusebox and obfusctating the design. To be honest shit >> > coder in, shit code out. Makes no difference what they do it in." - >> > >> > yes, but Fusebox doesn't encourage people to become better >> > developers. If anything, It makes it easier for them to "get >> > by" with little skill for longer. >> > >> > "it is overkill and I avoid like the plague" - >> > >> > me too >> > >> > "it does have it's uses" - >> > >> > like lining a bird cage? Seriously, though - you're right. >> > In an environment where standardization is important and the >> > developers don't have the skills to use best practices, >> > follow development guidlines, or write 'complex' >> > functionality on their own, it does have merit. >> > >> > ~Simon >> > >> > >> > >> > Simon Horwith >> > CTO, Etrilogy Ltd. >> > Member of Team Macromedia >> > Macromedia Certified Instructor >> > Certified Advanced ColdFusion MX Developer >> > Certified Flash MX Developer >> > CFDJList - List Administrator >> > http://www.how2cf.com/ >> > >> > >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: Adam Reynolds [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> > Sent: 04 February 2004 12:43 >> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> > Subject: RE: [ cf-dev ] cfstandards...coming soon! >> > >> > >> > I'd go with the fact once you setup whichever version of >> > fusebox you want to play with on your machine, then deploy it >> > onto a server. You forget the behind the scenes stuff you >> > have setup to do some of the fusebox stuff. >> > >> > Suddenly it's the host's fault that something ain't running >> > right cos it works fine on *my* machine. >> > >> > Russ, I do think you should be charging for this, which I >> > hope you are! >> > >> > As to fusebox and obfusctating the design. To be honest shit >> > coder in, shit code out. Makes no difference what they do it >> > in. Unfortunately FB does not help if somebody is doing some >> > amazingly awful coding. It will make it worse from a >> > maintenance point of view. >> > >> > Personally I like FB. Coming from a Software Engineering >> > background (if you ever fly, I was part of the team that >> > wrote the NERC aircraft collision detection system that >> > covers most of the south east commercial traffic) it gave me >> > an event driven model for web applications which lent itself >> > to taking the product of requirements analysis all the way >> > through to writing test harnesses. >> > >> > It depends on why you are using it. I do find in many cases >> > it is overkill and I avoid like the plague, but should you >> > get into a set of requirements that are into more than a >> > couple of pages...it does have it's uses. >> > >> > Adam >> > >> > > -----Original Message----- >> > > From: Kola Oyedeji [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> > > Sent: 04 February 2004 10:36 >> > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> > > Subject: RE: [ cf-dev ] cfstandards...coming soon! >> > > >> > > >> > > Coming in late here... >> > > >> > > But just to clarify, Russ are you saying that you're finding more >> > > bugs/errors in fusebox applications in comparison to non-fusebox >> > > applications or just pointing out that its harder to debug >> > a Fusebox >> > > application than a non-fusebox application (for a non fuseboxer)? >> > > >> > > Kola >> > > >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > ** 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] >> > >> >> >> -- >> ** 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]
