How about using SimpleMessageBoard ( http://www.simplemessageboard.com/ ) as
an example app? While I haven't looked at it closely and can't address the
issue of trivial/non-trivial, I do recall seeing the author of it mentioning
on CF-Talk that he was thinking of re-writing it to FuseBox as a means of
learning FB himself. If I recall, the focus of that discussion was one in
which non-FuseBox folks were debating, and in some cases criticizing,
FuseBox based on misguided presumptions.
SimpleMessageBoard is released under the GNU General Public License. I also
recall the question of an FB discussion app come up here several times in
the last few years. Might also work well as an FB learning tool that has
ongoing value to newcomers.
Just a thought.
Ken
----- Original Message -----
From: "Hal Helms" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Fusebox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2001 11:38 AM
Subject: RE: Why Benchmark? (An answer to Patrick)
> ***************************** Team Allaire *****************************
> I've been thinking about this and it seems to me we should take an
> application that's already done in non-Fusebox and then rewrite it with
> Fusebox. By doing this, we can avoid the argument that the non-Fusebox app
> was a straw man, written in order to fail. Does anyone have access to any
> non-trivial applications that are well-written and are not already
> Fuseboxed?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Judith Dinowitz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2001 11:16 AM
> To: Fusebox
> Subject: Why Benchmark? (An answer to Patrick)
>
>
>
> > > I agree with you on most points. I'm not converting to Fusebox for
speed
> > > increase. More portability and make my site more manageable so I can
> > > concentrate on adding cool features.
> > Exactly. So why are you benchmarking?
>
> Look, we all agree that FB is a great methodology, or we wouldn't be here
> and we wouldn't be supporting it.
> So, you ask a good question: Why benchmark?
>
> Wouldn't you like to have some scientific proof, some statistics to give
to
> people who nay-say FB? Also, wouldn't you like to be able to pinpoint
which
> parts of the FB methodology are faster and which may add a little time?
> Maybe this way we can make the whole thing more efficient. We can continue
> to refine the methodology.
>
> The point of this is not to say "Plain CF is better" or "FB is better."
The
> point is to prove that one does not _lose_ significantly in processing
speed
> when converting to Fusebox. And if there are speed bottlenecks in the
> process, let's pinpoint them and come up with solutions.
>
> How many times have you heard someone say "FB has too much overhead!"
Well,
> let's prove them wrong. But let's make sure these tests are done well, and
> look at this whole thing scientifically. I think the whole community will
> benefit.
>
> Judith
>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
