> Extended Fusebox is great, but does anybody believe a set of 'structure'
> standards are necessary?
>
Of course, they're not necessary at all, if you're developing in a small
team, or if you and your (larger) team have some other standards in place
internally. They are great recommendations and are better viewed as "best
practices" for people who are evolving towards that ("*some* standard, *any*
standard!"), or if your development is outsourced against a large group of
developers--some base-line standards then become necessary. But the
structure standards *are* necessary for the development of various tools
that are starting to emerge, and in order to get people to develope such
tools they have to have a concrete standard reference frame to work on.
It leaves everyone free to work under whatever standards they wish. But to
have a concrete list of techniques used in, say, "standard Fusebox 2.0", for
lack of a better term, allows all sorts of
code/tools/VTMs/RDEs/customtags/etc to be written that can be branded as
"FB2.0 compatible". The moment that happens people get to be able to create
things that others can use, confident that it won't break other parts of the
app, and confident that if they pay money for it that it conforms to some
known objective measure...so this is just a economic manifestation of the
same code-re-use that was an underlying theme of developing Fusebox anyway.
One goal would be to keep the standard "lite" enough that it does not
oppress the open-source feel of development, but "heavy" enough to gently
ease folks away from the Clint Eastwood "Do it any way you want without
ramifications" problem.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
