RE: Reactor For CF Remember KISS

[Miller, Ryan]

Yes, it occurred to me last night before leaving work that Doug hadn't put much input into the discussion so far and that I didn't want to continue without that.  I also discovered that the kind of suggestions I was making would require pretty changes all over the code base.  Lastly, I discovered that like Doug, I don't have a lot of time to work on the changes I was suggesting.   I still hope to see mapping features implemented in Reactor in the future.  When and if you get to it Doug I'd love to help out.   --Ryan Miller From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jared Rypka-Hauer Sent: Friday, February 10, 2006 8:03 AM To: reactor@doughughes.net Subject: Re: Reactor For CF Remember KISS Freakish, isn't it, how the boy's mind just cuts right to the meat  of the matter? He impresses me again and again. Laterz! J ------------------------------------------------ Jared C. Rypka-Hauer Continuum Media Group LLC http://www.web-relevant.com Member, Team Macromedia - ColdFusion "That which does not kill me makes me stranger." - Yonah Schmeidler On Feb 10, 2006, at 9:58 AM, Doug Hughes wrote: Scott, If this were Slashdot I think your comment would be moderated +5 Insightful.  ;) Doug From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Scott Stroz Sent: Friday, February 10, 2006 10:30 AM To: reactor@doughughes.net Subject: Re: Reactor For CF Remember KISS It seems to me that with Fusebox and M-G (the only 2 frameworks I have done quite a bit of work in) that a lot of the 'suggestions' I have seen/heard are nothing more than application functionality that is needed by the developer that may seem, to the developer, like it should be a job of the framework itself. Just my $0.02 On 2/10/06, Sean Corfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 2/10/06, Doug Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I just want to back Joe up on this.  He and I have had long conversations > about this topic.  For the most part, I agree with him. At the risk of adding a "me too!" voice, I'll back both Joe and Doug up here. This has been a continual problem with Mach II as well - and I'm now seeing it with Fusebox as I build out release 5. There's always someone with a new, cool feature that they want added. And, yes, sometimes the suggestion is a great idea but even then, sometimes it just doesn't fit with the vision / concepts of the framework and has to be rejected (esp. if there's already a way to achieve the same thing, either inside or outside the framework, even if it is a bit "ugly"). The reason a framework can be so compelling is that it offers a clear, concise, conceptual pattern to solving a given set of problems. If it is ambiguous or complex, it will not be widely adopted. When a framework gets too complex, someone comes along with a new, simpler alternative. No single framework is going to solve 100% of all *your* problems - frameworks are somewhat generic by their very nature. That's hard to bear in mind when you have a specific problem that framework doesn't quite solve for you. Think hard about whether your problem is really a generic problem - if lots of people will have that problem, then maybe, just maybe, it might be something the framework should consider trying to solve in the future. -- Sean A Corfield -- http://corfield.org/ Got frameworks? "If you're not annoying somebody, you're not really alive." -- Margaret Atwood -- Scott Stroz Boyzoid.com ___________________________ Some days you are the dog, Some days you are the tree.