Hi guys, just came in this morning. thanks for the responses will try out the
suggested code and get back to you.
I'm on CF9/Fusebox 5.5
~|
Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now!
Thanks Matt your suggestion worked.
cfset session.myvariable = duplicate(form) /
cflocation url=foo.cfm /
Odd this is the first time I've encountered this specific behaviour in
Coldfusion. Thanks a byunch was spinning my wheels on this.
Cool beans. Always glad to help. Thanks for reporting back. :-)
~|
Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now!
http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion
Archive:
Presumably you are doing something like so...
cfset session.myvariable = form /
cflocation url=foo.cfm /
I have not tested it, but I am guessing that you are loosing the session
variables because you are creating a _reference_ to the form scope. When
you redirect, the form scope is now
Dave, as you well know I usually agree with you. However, in this case, I
do not agree with you at all. Why? Because you are 100% wrong in your
statement. What I showed is **exactly** how references work.
1) If you create a _reference_ to something as my code example did...
cfset
On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 11:36 AM, Matt Quackenbush wrote:
The only way to pass a structure in CF by reference is by using
duplicate().
Oops. That is suppose to say
The only way to pass a structure in CF by value is by using duplicate().
On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 9:36 AM, Matt Quackenbush quackfu...@gmail.com wrote:
Dave, as you well know I usually agree with you. However, in this case, I
do not agree with you at all. Why? Because you are 100% wrong in your
statement. What I showed is **exactly** how references work.
Well,
On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 7:59 PM, Sean Corfield seancorfi...@gmail.com wrote:
I tried it on Railo and discovered that the form scope is somehow
reused across multiple requests - so on Railo, your logic would be
correct. That's interesting and I'll have to take that up with
engineering to find
I have two different CF9 installations that behave the way I described. It
actually caught me out on a quickie application I did for someone awhile
back, because I did not expect that behavior. But that's exactly what it
does on two different installations. shrug
On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 8:58 PM, Matt Quackenbush quackfu...@gmail.com wrote:
I have two different CF9 installations that behave the way I described.
Odd. I couldn't repro on CF9.0.1 locally. Do you have a small test
case that shows form scope behaving like that for you? I'd love to try
it on
Presumably you are doing something like so...
cfset session.myvariable = form /
cflocation url=foo.cfm /
I have not tested it, but I am guessing that you are loosing the session
variables because you are creating a _reference_ to the form scope. When
you redirect, the form scope is now empty,
What version of fusebox is it?
You should be able to swap or suppress the layout around the csv content.
-Original Message-
From: Glyn Jackson [mailto:glyn.jack...@newebia.co.uk]
Sent: Friday, December 04, 2009 9:12 AM
To: cf-talk
Subject: fusebox layout adding to csv?
Hi I have an
SEE thread from earlier today for my 2 cents:
http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:58671#318786
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 6:23 PM, Joe joe_ts...@hotmail.com wrote:
I've been asked to start on a new project from the ground up and I'm
interested in using FB55 for this
24th of this month is a class Intro to Fusebox and next month is
Intermediate Fusebox 5
http://teratech.com/go/training/class-schedule?trainingaction=detailTID=358
$400 class and a $300 plane ticket... I'm sure you'll make up that $700 in
productivity in the next few months.
Greg Luce
Luce
hi,
apologies for the delayed thanks! - but thanks very much there are some
excellent points here and really made me understand.
seeing as we are doing everything to understand OO and change our applications
into OO it sounds like we should stick with it - it is really helping us
understand
I don't know anyone who thinks that TDD is the be-all-end-all of software
development. The reality is that it does offer some very tangible benefits:
- Everyone writes some kind of test. It might be a scribble pad that you
run to make sure something works. It might be that you write code
I'm not going to get into the discussion of whether or not TDD is good, bad, or
should be done lest you are just stupid and ugly. Anytime, or anyway, you think
hard about the software you deliver, it's is going to be better than if you
just bang it out with one eye open and hope no one sees
still
looking!
Jaime
-Original Message-
From: Bill Shelton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, 4 September 2008 1:59 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: TDD vs. Big Ball of Mud (was Re: fusebox vs model glue)
I'm not going to get into the discussion of whether or not TDD is good
I like that you've been thinking about thinking while writing your
framework, Isaac. I dig that. :-)
The way I'm currently tackling the tests, is to try to work them into
my routine.
That hard part is, as been mentioned, not having to go back a lot to
keep it all in sync.
I wonder if this
On Sun, Aug 31, 2008 at 11:11 PM, s. isaac dealey wrote:
TDD is on my ever growing list of things to tackle. :) Not something I'm
doing currently, but it is something I plan to do at some point.
It's cool, really, to have the computer do stuff it can do, while
you're doing other stuff, so
denstar wrote:
Sounds like with FB you could end up with a Pretty Entertaining Environment.
*groans*
Is there a down side to all the flexibility? :-)
Yes. It means that no 2 application developers will develop websites the
same way. Though IMHO, that's not much of a downside.
It could also
It's actually switching over, to where the tests come first, that's
the hard part, for me. Due to a lot of the reasons listed in that
article about big balls of mud. :]
I'm not entirely convinced that writing the test before writing the code
is the best strategy... or at least that it's the
).
Eric
/*-Original Message-
/*From: Larry Lyons [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
/*Sent: Monday, September 01, 2008 11:01 AM
/*To: CF-Talk
/*Subject: Re: fusebox vs model glue
/*
/*denstar wrote:
/* Sounds like with FB you could end up with a Pretty Entertaining
/*Environment.
/*
/**groans
]
/*Sent: Monday, September 01, 2008 11:01 AM
/*To: CF-Talk
/*Subject: Re: fusebox vs model glue
/*
/*denstar wrote:
/* Sounds like with FB you could end up with a Pretty Entertaining
/*Environment.
/*
/**groans*
/*
/* Is there a down side to all the flexibility? :-)
/*
/*Yes. It means
TDD advocate here... I really think folks are going into TDD with this
mindset that it's just write a test before you write code (so yes your are
somewhat right). Doing this is going to result in frustration and an
eventual failure and abandonment of TDD. Focusing on just writing a test is
really
Eric sometime we should talk about these draconian restrictions and
what you've had to do with Fusebox, drop me a line sometime.
I imagine you were thinking something like I was...
What was it in Fusebox (of all things) that would be anathema to the
server managers at ATT? FB's always struck
-Original Message-
From: s. isaac dealey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, 2 September 2008 3:06 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: TDD vs. Big Ball of Mud (was Re: fusebox vs model glue)
snip
And so it's an assumed that the TDD advocates who talk about writing all
your tests before
TDD advocate here... I really think folks are going into TDD with
this mindset that it's just write a test before you write code (so yes
your are somewhat right). Doing this is going to result in frustration
and an eventual failure and abandonment of TDD. Focusing on just
writing a test is
Whoa, hold it right there. Show me the TDD advocate who promotes
writing all tests before writing code and I'll personally have their
card revoked! TDD means write a test, then write some code, then write
another testby the time you write your last test, you've written
all your code bar
They all have their ups and downs, I would imagine.
I can vouch for the fact that well-written MG apps, as I assume is the
same for the other frameworks, are pretty easy to debug and whatnot.
Poorly written, however, sucks donkey balls. And I've written some
code that deserves to be flushed.
Disclaimer: I just took over the Fusebox core files so my opinion is most
likely slaned ;)
Well the easy answer here is no they are not similar and yes use one or the
other. The hard answer is that evil last one. What's the maturity level of
you/your group? Fusebox offers a vast bit more
Sounds like with FB you could end up with a Pretty Entertaining Environment.
Is there a down side to all the flexibility? :-)
--
The community of masses of human beings has produced an order of life
in regulated channels which connects individuals in a technically
functioning organisation, but
denstar wrote:
Sounds like with FB you could end up with a Pretty Entertaining Environment.
*groans*
Is there a down side to all the flexibility? :-)
Yes. It means that no 2 application developers will develop websites the
same way. Though IMHO, that's not much of a downside.
Hell yes there can be a downside to flexibility. That's one of the things
I've always complain about with fusebox, but I am not planning on changing
that flexibility. With a good set of best practices and coding standards you
can wrangle in the variations some and not loose all your flexibility,
Hell yes there can be a downside to flexibility. That's one of the
things I've always complain about with fusebox, but I am not planning
on changing that flexibility. With a good set of best practices and
coding standards you can wrangle in the variations some and not loose
all your
On Sun, Aug 31, 2008 at 12:58 PM, Phillip M. Vector wrote:
denstar wrote:
Sounds like with FB you could end up with a Pretty Entertaining Environment.
*groans*
First I was going to go with Pretty Incredible, Sophisticated and
Simple-- but thought that it was a little much. =]
Is there a
Hey, Isaac, you got unit tests being generated as well? I'd toss that
in there, while you're at generating stuff.
I'm loving my tests...
TDD is on my ever growing list of things to tackle. :) Not something I'm
doing currently, but it is something I plan to do at some point.
As of yet I
On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 1:03 PM, Richard White [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
hi
we have just reviewed model glue, and have also looked into fusebox very
briefly
is fusebox similiar to model glue? and if so is it a case of using one or
the other? and if so then what are your feelings on which
hi
we have just reviewed model glue, and have also looked into fusebox
very briefly
It might be good to also review Coldbox.
www.coldboxframework.com
Will
~|
Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and
Richard White said:
is fusebox similiar to model glue? and if so is it a case of using
one or the other? and if so then what are your feelings on which one
is better?
Although it might not mean much right now, I'll say very briefly that
Model-Glue is an OO framework, meaning that, if you're
I may be in the minority here, but I've come into several projects that
use Model Glue AND fusebox (turning it into a confusing mess for us
developers who don't know much OO programing).
If you do happen to pick a framework, if possible, please try to stick
to that one. :)
I may be in the minority here, but I've come into several projects that
use Model Glue AND fusebox (turning it into a confusing mess for us
developers who don't know much OO programing).
If you do happen to pick a framework, if possible, please try to stick
to that one. :)
I would
On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 5:24 PM, s. isaac dealey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hey Ike:
Hell of a well-thought out post. I was going to snip it down and keep only
relevant bits, but it was all pretty relevant (so um yeah... i snipped it
all) :)
the one point i'd like to try and make in response is
Hell of a well-thought out post. I was going to snip it down and
keep only relevant bits, but it was all pretty relevant (so um yeah...
i snipped it all) :)
PeppermintPatty
Thanks Chuck!
/PeppermintPatty
Actually I do appreciate the complement. :)
i think once you grok the basics
Oh... Beyond belief. :)
I could try to explain HOW confusing... but I can't even begin to
explain it. That's how confusing it is. :)
But the last 5 contracts I did (with different people) had Model Glue
with a fusebox like setup (or standard fusebox). Hopefully, I'm just
unlucky and this
Hi, Chris,
I know for a fact that you could not nest if tags like that in Fusebox 4.0.
I'm pretty sure that you have to use Fusebox 5 or later to do that.
--
Brian Swartzfager
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
~|
Adobe® ColdFusion® 8
You might want to start by flow charting the site (physically speaking).
This will give you a map of what the page flow is.
Eric
-Original Message-
From: Mike Kear [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2007 7:29 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Fusebox - is there a trick to
On 7/25/07, Mike Kear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is it a simple/trivial thing to convert to fusebox 5+ ?
Well, in *theory* it's just a matter of installing the FB51 core files
under your webroot (or elsewhere and add a /fusebox5 mapping) and then
you just change your application's index.cfm to
I'd say the debugging information with order of execution and execution
times and templates and paths is most useful for this. It tells you what
templates are being executed and where.
-Original Message-
From: Mike Kear [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2007 8:29 AM
If you have debug access I have an enhanced debug template that shows the full
flow of an application. It includes standard templates, components, custom tags
and includes in a full tree view.
~|
Get involved in the latest
Thanks Michael, that sounds interesting. I'd like to have a look at
that. I'm new to fusebox, and I have to say I'm yet to be convinced
it's better than the way I do my own sites. But i inherited it, and
it's not going to be rebuilt any time soon, so I have to roll my
sleeves up and learn
Michael, is this available somewhere?
I'd really like to check it out.
-Original Message-
From: Michael Dinowitz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2007 9:13 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Fusebox - is there a trick to following the flow?
If you have debug access I have
On Wednesday 25 Jul 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Michael, is this available somewhere?
I'd really like to check it out.
Turn on the relevant debug option in the CF admin.
--
Tom Chiverton
This email is sent for and on behalf of
He said it's a custom template. Like you set in the administrator.
-Original Message-
From: Tom Chiverton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2007 10:10 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Fusebox - is there a trick to following the flow?
On Wednesday 25 Jul 2007, [EMAIL
It wasn't that steep when I tried learning it, but then again, I learned
on FB3. :)
The idea is that you only open up 1 circuit.xml file at a time. trace
down the error that's causing a fuseaction to go kaput and then move
onto the next.
It shoulds like you are opening all the pages that have
Sandra, thank you!That looks extremely helpful.
What does parameter name=mode value=development / do? Does it
force a reload of the XML files every page view? If so, that's what
i've been looking for for days now!
And yes, this app seems pretty well written by the previous guy. IT
Couple of things that will help in Debugging a Fusebox 4+ app.
1) Validate the XML in circuit.xml.cfm. Fusebox will burp on bad XML.
If an error shows up in the parsed file. (circuit.fuseaction.cfm) then the
error is in the circuit.
Most well done FB4+ apps usually use MVC. The controller
Thanks for your suggestion Phillip.
Actually what I am currently tasked with is duplicate part of the
functionality of one circuit in a new circuit. At first sight, all i
have to do is copy that circuit to a new folder, tweak the
circuit.xml.cfm files a bit and change the dsp files to show the
: Wednesday, July 25, 2007 10:52 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Fusebox - is there a trick to following the flow?
Thanks for your suggestion Phillip.
Actually what I am currently tasked with is duplicate part of the
functionality of one circuit in a new circuit. At first sight, all i
have to do is copy
and Accessibility
Team Fusebox
-Original Message-
From: Mike Kear [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2007 10:56 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Fusebox - is there a trick to following the flow?
Sandra, thank you!That looks extremely helpful.
What does parameter name=mode value
Thanks Sean. Your advice is very welcome.
It's a Fusebox 4.0.2 app. The circuits folder has 28,000 files in
it! Took 45 minutes just to unzip onto my dev PC.
Is it a simple/trivial thing to convert to fusebox 5+ ?It's not
going to be something i'm going to be paid to do, so it needs to
, 2007 10:56 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Fusebox - is there a trick to following the flow?
Sandra, thank you!That looks extremely helpful.
What does parameter name=mode value=development / do? Does it
force a reload of the XML files every page view? If so, that's what
i've been looking
On 7/25/07, Mike Kear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What does parameter name=mode value=development / do? Does it
force a reload of the XML files every page view?
Yup. It'll makes things run slowly (since the framework is reloading
on every request) but it will enable you to test the changes you
You *think* you were the only one accesssing it. ;) The problem you
describe (corrupted memory structures) is exactly the symptom of
multi-threaded access to a non-production Fusebox app. Why I didn't
mention that up front, I can't say, guess I just assumed (and when you
assume...).
The
Aaaa... Ok. That makes sense. :)
Thanks.
Barney Boisvert wrote:
The problem is that in development mode, the whole memory structure is
rebuilt from scratch (after being deleted) each request. If a request
builds it's version, and then during processing the next request
thrashes it, you
Why you're getting this error, I'm not 100% sure, but I'd bet it's
because you have different versions of the core files. If you add a
parameter in fusebox.xml named 'parseWithComments', that should take
care of the issue, however.
cheers,
banreyb
On 7/13/07, Phillip M. Vector [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The parameter is there. Also, the core files are a direct copy from my
local. So logically, it should work.
Barney Boisvert wrote:
Why you're getting this error, I'm not 100% sure, but I'd bet it's
because you have different versions of the core files. If you add a
parameter in fusebox.xml
Are you reloading the fusebox when you deploy? Or you might try
putting structDelete(application, fusebox, false) in index.cfm,
running it once, and then removing it, just to ensure you've got a
pristine memory state.
cheers,
barneyb
On 7/13/07, Phillip M. Vector [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The
I did the structDelete and that fixed the main error. Thank you. :)
Now, if you are up to it, is another error I'm now getting (again, I'm
not getting it in the local server).
Element Main is undefined in a CFML structure referenced as part of an
expression.
Can you explain this in laymens
Sounds like it's looking for the main circuit inside it's internal
data structures, and not finding it. How that could happen with
identical code, I'm not sure. You've double checked that all the
files you think you're using are the ones that are actually being
used?
On 7/13/07, Phillip M.
Yup. It's loading the correct files.
and yeah, with identical code, the only thing I can figure is the server
somehow blocking something.
Barney Boisvert wrote:
Sounds like it's looking for the main circuit inside it's internal
data structures, and not finding it. How that could happen with
Got it fixed by putting it from development to production.
I didn't think it really mattered due to either it's on the local
machine or on a live server if I was the only one accessing it and I
didn't mind waiting the longer time while it compiles.
I guess it does matter. :) Thanks for the
On 5/18/07, Sandra Clark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Make sure your Fusebox_application_path in index.cfm points to the skeleton
path.
cfset FUSEBOX_APPLICATION_PATH = skeleton/
If I am reading your email message correctly.
Thanks, Sandra
I think the problem, which I didn't probably provide
Make sure your Fusebox_application_path in index.cfm points to the skeleton
path.
cfset FUSEBOX_APPLICATION_PATH = skeleton/
If I am reading your email message correctly.
Sandra Clark
=
http://www.shayna.com
Training and Consulting in CSS and Accessibility
Team Fusebox
Also for FB4, make sure you don't have multiple fusebox apps using the same
CF application name.
FB4 and 4.1 store the application settings etc. from fusebox.xml and
circuit.xml files in the structure Application.fusebox -- only one per cf
applicationname. If 2 fusebox apps share the same
Hello Qasim,
Thank you for this. I'm learning a lot about Fusebox as I work on this
project. =)
The fusebox.xml.cfm has the mode set to Development. I will try to do my
research on what effect this has on the application as a while, but any
additional pointers you could provide would be
Just to follow up on this, I think Qasim's suggestion was right on the
mark. I updated that Fusebox setting, cleared all the parsed files, and
started surfing the site again. The random errors we were getting no
longer appear present, and I'm crossing my fingers hoping they don't return.
PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Fusebox Help
Just to follow up on this, I think Qasim's suggestion was right on the
mark. I updated that Fusebox setting, cleared all the parsed files, and
started surfing the site again. The random errors we were getting no
longer appear present, and I'm crossing my
Jordan,
I am glad to be of help. There are several execution modes that govern a
fusebox application lifecyle. It would definitely help you to look into this
brief documenation.
http://www.fusebox.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=documentation.WhatsNewInFusebox5
Although this mainly discusses Fusebox
Has anyone seen this kind of behavior in a Fusebox site before? Any
suggestions on where I should start looking for a problem cause? Since
the errors appear to be random (go to page, click a link, get random
error - go to page, click same link, get different random error) I'm not
sure where
There we go. Fusebox 4. Thanks Josh.
I completely agree with your comments as well. I'm not trying to imply
anything about the stability of fusebox, but since neither I, or anyone
in my shop has spent any large amounts of time working with Fusebox. I
guess I was just wondering if anyone had
There we go. Fusebox 4. Thanks Josh.
Unfortunately my experience is with FB3. FB4 is quite different in that it
uses XML files to configure the logic flow. That's about all I know about
it. I don't know anything about it writing files to the file system,
although it may well do that. I
Jordan,
The autogenerated files should be in the parsed directory under your
application root. This is where fusebox keeps generated files after it has
gone through the compile process. If your site in development mode (i.e.
mode parameter in fusebox.xml.cfm file?
Thanks
Qasim
On 5/14/07,
On 4/1/07, John Beynon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
just make sure you reference your swf relative to the root index.cfm -
if your use httpwatch (http://www.httpwatch.com/) to show you what is
being loaded and you'll see the problem immediately,
Yeah, it's almost certainly a path issue - Fusebox
just make sure you reference your swf relative to the root index.cfm -
if your use httpwatch (http://www.httpwatch.com/) to show you what is
being loaded and you'll see the problem immediately,
john.
On 4/1/07, Tom Rainey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Standard code below for embeding .swf file will
Tero,
It seems that you have encrypted fusebox.xml.cfm and other
circuit.xml.cfmfiles. Those are essentially just XML which has a .cfm
extension.
HTH
Qasim
On 3/26/07, Tero Pikala [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi
I'm testing Fusebox 5.1 application deployment as a WAR to JRun 4.0
I have
Quasim,
after you said it it seems so obvious.
Thanks
Tero
On Mar 26, 2007, at 4:59 PM, Qasim Rasheed wrote:
Tero,
It seems that you have encrypted fusebox.xml.cfm and other
circuit.xml.cfmfiles. Those are essentially just XML which has a .cfm
extension.
HTH
Qasim
On 3/26/07,
Fixed. SESconverter.cfm has something in it that cf7 and IIS6 together don't
like (The code runs fine on CF7 on IIS5 and CF6 on IIS5). I replaced the file
with this bit of code at the top of the index.cfm file and it works now.
cfscript
// note that you might have to manipulate
Nevermind. It seems it was a ID-10-T error on my side.
On 3/9/07, Chris Ditty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am trying to start a new project with FB4. No matter what I do, it
only pulls up the main circuit. I did something similar with FB3 a
few years ago, but I never had issues like this.
If the problem isn't solved, a band-aid fix might be to just
redirect domainname.com/ to www.domainname.com/in your application.cfm
Sessions work fine when someone is on http://www.domainname.com.
However, the Flash developer added a link to an ad on the home page
that uses
.
So do ME a favor and don't make this personal. If you don't agree with me,
that's fine...I won't lose any sleep over it.
-Original Message-
From: Matt Quackenbush [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, February 09, 2007 4:13 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Fusebox Web Site Design Contest
, February 09, 2007 4:15 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Fusebox Web Site Design Contest Announced
Anyone with *any* business sense at all knows that contests are an
*extremely* good marketing/growth tool. Only the completely id10Tic people
in this world can even consider the notion that contests are bad
AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Fusebox Web Site Design Contest Announced
Matt...
Why are you being a jerk? It's obvious to me that all you're trying to do is
to stir up trouble. If you had taken even a few moments to read the links
that I posted in my second email, you would have read
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, February 09, 2007 4:15 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Fusebox Web Site Design Contest Announced
Anyone with *any* business sense at all knows that contests are an
*extremely* good marketing/growth tool. Only the completely id10Tic
people
in this world can
:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2007 8:18 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Fusebox Web Site Design Contest Announced
Matt...
Why are you being a jerk? It's obvious to me that all you're trying to do
is
to stir up trouble. If you had taken even a few moments to read the links
that I
To echo what Matt said, I agree with you on Spec Work as well.
What we disagree on is whether or not this specific contest is considered
spec work. You feel it is, I feel it is not.
Scott Stroz
~|
Upgrade to Adobe ColdFusion
On 2/9/07, Andy Matthews [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is basically asking people to work for free, with only a chance of
the
possibility of winning the contest. It's called Spec Work and it's a bad
practice.
no, it's called a *contest*. Enter it, don't enter it, it's up to you. I
don't
With respect to the organizers of this contest, to Fusebox, and to you
Sandra...this is a poor idea.
This is basically asking people to work for free, with only a chance of the
possibility of winning the contest. It's called Spec Work and it's a bad
practice.
Would any of the programmers on this
I disagree.
If someone wants to help, show the world what they can do, or whatever
their reasoning why not? It's no different than a photo contest, art
contest or the contest Ray Camden runs occasionally for showing off what
you can do with your programing skills.
It's a contest with prizes
5318
http://www.aiga.org/content.cfm?CategoryID=105
-Original Message-
From: So Kenfused [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, February 09, 2007 1:43 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Fusebox Web Site Design Contest Announced
I disagree.
If someone wants to help, show the world what
1 - 100 of 1022 matches
Mail list logo
