Hey, what a guy!
Of course, you are talking about Extended FuseBOX (XFB).
XFB around here means AT LEAST TWO things. Hal Helms is the originator of
both, though he has of course been collaborating in all of this with Steve
and many others.
MEANING ONE: A very classy architecture for nesting circuit applications,
which allows child circuits to inherit and/or override the environment from
their ancestors. This technique is easily identified by the use of
double-barreled fuseactions of the form "circuit.action", specifying both an
alias for the "target" circuit the fuseaction within that circuit. See
HalHelms.com for more details. This is what I mean by "XFB", and I believe
is the definition commonly used around here, though I could certainly be
wrong about that ;-)
MEANING TWO: A whole ColdFusion development methodology largely Hal's
creation, but also distilling many ideas and best-practices from many
sources. Elements include: wireframes, prototyping, FuseDocs, DevNotes,
test harnesses and nested circuits (see MEANING ONE). This is Hal's
preferred definition of XFB, as you have seen. I consider it something of a
misnomer, as 90% of the methodology has nothing particularly to do with
FuseBox, and is perfectly applicable to other architectures.
DISCUSSION: I am always reluctant to try and blend architectural issues with
methodological issues. I am a great fan of XFB(1), ie Hal's nested circuits
architecture. I am also a great fan of XFB(2), ie Hal's development
methodology, but that is an entirely seperate matter. I can foresee many
circumstances in which I will use the methodology without the architecture,
and vice versa. For example, I work in a huge organisation that already has
its own ages old development methodologies. This does not stop me from
using XFB(1) nested circuits, however. I am also sure that, one day, I will
work somewhere where FuseBox and ColdFusion are not used, but they will
absolutely love the requirements gathering and testing techniques that are
part of Hal's XFB(2) development methodology.
Of course, let me reiterate: I am a great fan of both the XFB architecture
AND the XFB methodology. I just think that they need different names.
"Nested Circuits" is not good enough, because there are many other ways to
nest circuits, which we have all used since forever. Suggestions? (eg Shut
up, Lee!)
If you have read this far, then THANKS,
LeeBB
>From: "John Quarto-vonTivadar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> >Subject: RE: What is the difference between FuseBox and Extended FuseDoc?
>
>I think of Extended FuseDOC as the stuff Lee is always suggesting. :)
>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
