Yes they do, however you have to stop and look at the development approach
first. For example, I have seen developers store information as a Content
Object that has no need to be stored in this manner. This adds so much
overhead its not funny, and when looking at what the functionality of
cfa_Handler offers I will stick to the fusebox method or the method that I
have adopted over the last 4 years, it works and remains to be faster than
using the cfa_handler.
As I said any developer can appraoch the design of the site, with anything
in mind. There is no hard fast ways of doing things, but there is a thing
called optimisation and there is a lot of Spectra tags and functionality
that I will not use because it adds to much to the overhead of proccessing
the pages. And when I develop that is the main thing, code speed and overall
site optimisation. I have been developing with my method for about 2 years
from observation of the work that I was doing, and how I could improve the
speed of developing a site.
Sure Spectra is very good at managing Content, lets not argue on that fact.
But its how this tool set is used that concerns me more than anything. I
have been looking at Spectra Since late 1999 and I can tell you it hasn't
made be go WOW yet:-)
-----Original Message-----
From: Toby Tremayne [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 06 March 2001 18:22
To: Spectra-Talk
Subject: RE: Spectra w/Fusebox?
it depends greatly on the purposes of your application. I've been building
content management and business process handling through spectra (using
fusebox). Being able to invoke handlers on things is very useful
sometimes - as is the workflow and plp functionality...
in fusebox you begin to seperate things into handler-like files at any rate.
A lot of the meeting between fusebox and spectra comes down to how you
invoke your objects and pass information from one to the other - as these
invocations will replace a lot of your cfincludes...
Toby Tremayne
Code Poet and Zen Master of the Heavy Sleep
Show Ads Interactive
359 Plummer St
Port Melbourne
VIC 3207
P +61 3 9245 1247
F +61 3 9646 9814
ICQ UIN 13107913
-----Original Message-----
From: Scott, Andrew [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, 6 March 2001 4:06 PM
To: Spectra-Talk
Subject: RE: Spectra w/Fusebox?
What I mean is that with running some stats, I moved a handler from a site I
was working on into a custom tag, 2 reasons I thought it was slow and I
didn't think that this should be considered an object within Spectra.
The results where that the custom tag took 10ms too run compared with 380ms
to run through the Spectra Handler tags, of course there maybe areas where a
handler is needed. But it has been my experience that I have not come across
a reason to use them yet:-)
-----Original Message-----
From: Aaron Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 06 March 2001 15:15
To: Spectra-Talk
Subject: RE: Spectra w/Fusebox?
Hey Andrew,
Could you unpack your statement re: handlers adding overhead a bit?
Obviously invoking a method (thereby invoking a handler) takes some
overhead, but what specifically have you seen in terms of overhead?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at
http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Unsubscribe visit
http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists&body=lists/spectra_talk or send a
message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with 'unsubscribe' in the body.
