> Ben, it seems to me that you're only equating "Fusebox" with > "cfcase".
To a large degree, I am, but I think the Index.cfm/CFSwitch architecture is fundamental to Fusebox. > I agree that CFCs do a much nicer job than the cfcase, but that's > just one part of Fusebox--and a fairly small part at that. I disagree, but oh well. :) Regardless, I think the other aspects of Fusebox, (e.g. nested layouts, Fusedocs, etc.) could be converted to or built around CFCs. There would still be an application framework, so to speak, but I think it would be much more light weight because it would leverage the new features of ColdFusion. In fact, I think it wouldn't so much be an application framework as just a couple components, components which could probably be used by a greater number of people, not just those coding completely in the latest Fusebox standard. I don't meant that derisively, but positively. I think there is a much larger scope here. > CFCs, > it seems to me, provides greater opportunities for Fusebox to > concentrate on solving other common development problems. No doubt. But I think, to make best use of what ColdFusion MX gives me, I will be dropping most of what makes Fusebox "Fusebox." Again, I'm equating my framework with Fusebox. I have nested layouts, though the implementation is different, XFAs, though the variable name is different, etc. I don't have Fusedocs, though I was thinking of porting it, or finally switching to standard Fusebox...until I saw the holy light shining down on CFCs, that is. :) Oh well, I'll relent. As you can tell, I'm pretty excited about the possibilities. Only time will tell, though. Benjamin S. Rogers http://www.c4.net/ v.508.240.0051 f.508.240.0057 -----Original Message----- From: Benjamin S. Rogers [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2002 11:01 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: SuperQ functionality with the STANDARD core (Re: MVCquestion) > You make a few good points in this article, but I do have a couple > comments for you. Thanks (both for the compliment and the comments). > The title of the article is "...Fusebox is Toast" yet in your last > paragraph you say "So, does this mean that Fusebox is toast. No". > Isn't that a little contradictory? Heh, heh, heh. Guess that made it by my editorial staff (a.k.a. me). What I mean is that I think most of the problems with CFML (and development in general) that were reasons for coding in Fusebox have been solved in the CFML language itself with CFCs. Nevertheless, I don't expect most fuseboxers to quit coding in fusebox. > Also, I think you might be missing the point of fusedocs. You stated > that CFCs document for you. While this may be true if you've already > written and tested the CFC, it is not the point of Fusedocs. Fusedocs > are like blueprints, when you're building a house, you don't build the > house THEN draw the blueprints. It's the other way around. Fusedocs > tell the programmer what variables they have so they know what their > fuse needs to do. This has been a major flaw for 50 years in the > concept of software documentation. That's a very interesting point, one which I hadn't considered. However, would it be better to continue to use Fusebox and Fusedocs or to adapt Fusedocs to CFCs? Obviously that is an over generalized question, but you probably get the point. Benjamin S. Rogers http://www.c4.net/ v.508.240.0051 f.508.240.0057 "Benjamin S. Rogers" wrote: > > > Don't you understand... that if you don't want to move the standard > > to MX then you are dedicating resources to develop an alternate way > > of doing what MX is ready to do... hmmm... maybe I am wrong... but > > it seems like that is the case. > > <plug type="Shameless"> > > That was actually one of the main points of an article I wrote just > the other day. You may find my experiences interesting. > > http://www.fulgen.com/content/developerscorner1.cfm > > </plug> > > Benjamin S. Rogers > http://www.c4.net/ > v.508.240.0051 > f.508.240.0057 > ==^================================================================ This email was sent to: [email protected] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?bUrFMa.bV0Kx9 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^================================================================
