In my humble opinion...if we strive to simply apply ourselves to the "little
things" that make a methodology stand on its own, then we help erect a
stronger foundation on which to build future development habits and
standards. There is nothing wrong with taking the time to ask the questions
and find the answers to build the best framework you can so you don't have
to do it again...that's not getting bogged down or rigidly tying us to
anything...its just good practice.
Anything that the Fusebox method does not cover or only scrapes the surface
of is free game and where you take it from there is always, and always has
been, up to you...but things that it does cover, like directory structure
and certain request variables, should be followed so that we all speak the
same language. In my job as a contractor, when I introduce Fusebox, I don't
call it anything you will find in the book...I call it a method of
communication. If one person decides its going to be a /queries directory
and another person say "oh that's silly and I'm not going to waste my time
worrying about that...I'm going to call it the /findthedata directory"...we
lose something important...the ability to effectivly communicate (of course
as it relates to this topic...that statement was not carte blanche).
Ultimately, you are right...it should not really matter in the grand scheme
of things and doesn't...in fact I have dared to break the rules in a
contract or two just to meet specific needs or demands. But if you ever
need help and you send your code to someone and tell them its fusebox'd and
you don't follow those simple "standards" (for lack of a better word), there
is always the chance that it will be just a little harder or take a little
longer to get that help you need.
So there is a "compliancy" and not only do I not think that there is
anything wrong with saying it...I am proud to say it and proud to be it.
Break down the walls, tear away from the chains and push that envelope, but
don't believe that conformity and consistency are the hallmarks of a narrow
mind...they are the things that help make us a community.
Mike Craig
"Its a Fusebox World"
-----Original Message-----
From: Fred T. Sanders [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2001 1:43 PM
To: Fusebox
Subject: Re: directory structure
> Now I agree that we can all do what we want, but there is such a thing as
> "fusebox compliant".
Which would be what? Hal's method? Steve's way of doing things? Gabes use of
an app_model.cfm and the extra tags that came with it?
The only thing that they agree on is everything going through the index.cfm
(debatable with Hal's #self# variable, he can have any centralized file and
name it what he wants without breaking anything.)
I'm not saying any one method is right or wrong. The fact is they all work
and work well. The only thing that seperates them is how much control you
need and how much or how little overhead your willing to sacrifice to have
it there a head of time.
Even when Steve use's app_model.cfm he does it in a completely different way
than Gabe does.
Fusebox is a set of best practices, and a few tags to help make those
practices as easy as possible requiring as little extra thought as possible.
The point of fusebox IMHO is to speed development of our application by
taking care of some of the issues we would normally have had to deal with a
head of time.
There is no "compliancy" just good solid suggestions on how to make your
project development much much easier.
You do what you feel comfortable with and what works for you and for your
project. I've often used one method over the other simply because for that
particular project it made sense.
You get too rigidly tied down to one way or another and you'll never get
anything done.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Craig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Fusebox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2001 6:21 AM
Subject: FW: directory structure
> Now I agree that we can all do what we want, but there is such a thing as
> "fusebox compliant". This term offers to developers what we need to
> most...some kind of standardization. I am not saying fusebox should be
~~~ snip snip snip~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at
http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
