Looking at the faq for mail-archive, http://www.mail-archive.com/faq.html
It says "The new list will become searchable within one week.". The list is just shy of a week old so maybe it needs a little more time.
-Phil
Thanks Phil,
Hmm... searching for "CF" in the archives returned no results…
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Phil Cruz
Sent: Friday, February 10, 2006 1:16 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Reactor For CF Remember KISS
http://www.mail-archive.com/reactor%40doughughes.net/
-Phil
p.s. maybe we can add that link to the footer of all messages?On 2/10/06, Baz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Are there searchable archives for the reactor list?
Thanks,
Baz
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Doug Hughes
Sent: Friday, February 10, 2006 10:59 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: Reactor For CF Remember KISS
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: [email protected]
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 $0.02On 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.
