If enough people believe in something they make it happen. Enough people
believe fusebox is a better way of doing things therefore it is. The
overhead however undocumented is an acceptable trade-off and if we need to
build better computers to handle our way of doing things then so be it!
Why don't whoever is interested build a non fusebox app and then a fusebox
app test them both and then post a url with the code for the two apps, the
metrics involved, and any other documentation they see fit.
If 10% of the people debating how to go about doing this would just do it
there would be a plethora of references people like judith could send those
interested parties to.
My 2 cents
-----Original Message-----
From: Patrick McElhaney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2001 2:47 PM
To: Fusebox
Subject: RE: Why Benchmark? (An answer to Patrick)
There is no scientific way to go from non-Fusebox to Fusebox. The
experiment would not be reproducable and therefore would be
invalid.
The question is not "can we take a fusebox app and strip out stuff
to make it run faster," but "how much faster would a fusebox app be
if it didn't have the overhead," the inverse of which is "how much
slower does the fusebox overhead make an app?"
The way I suggested gives a slight advantage to fusebox opponents,
which is what we want, because we're so confident and because it's
only fair since we design the experiment.
Patrick
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hal Helms [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2001 2:38 PM
> To: Fusebox
> Subject: RE: Why Benchmark? (An answer to Patrick)
>
>
> ***************************** Team Allaire *****************************
> No, because that's not the way non-Fusebox apps are written. The question
> isn't "can we take a fusebox app and strip out stuff to make it
> run faster"
> but in a real-world situation, what are the metrics for a normal FB v. a
> normal non-FB app.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Patrick McElhaney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2001 12:55 PM
> To: Fusebox
> 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?
>
> If you really want to do it right, take a Fusebox app, and remove all of
> its overhead. Take out FormURL2Attributes and use Form/URL variables
> instead of attributes. Then make a .cfm file for every fuseaction, and
> cut & paste all of the code that would otherwise be cfincluded there.
> Hardcode everything that you wouldn't normally hardcode in fusebox.
> Then remove any inefficiencies that may be caused by the conversion
> (such as code that was added to a fuse because it was needed in one
> fuseaction, but may not be necessary in another fuseaction).
>
> That way the non-fusebox version is written the same way as the
> fusebox version, only without any fusebox overhead. (In fact, it
> probably will be optimized more than a normal non-fusebox app.)
>
> Patrick
>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
