Fusebox or Not Fusebox, That is the Question (David Watts)

I'd have to reject the argument that Fusebox should be used solely because there isn't another commonly-used standard in the CF development community. There are other standards. Admittedly, none of them are nearly as widely known or used, but they're there nonetheless.

Fusebox has some serious flaws, as far as a general-purpose methodology for web development. Fusebox focuses solely on the application server tier, ignoring database and client tiers which exist within every application. It focuses on CFML portability, to the exclusion of application partitioning. I suspect that Fusebox will run into problems in the future, as Allaire adds object tiers to the development platform.

If Fusebox does what you need it to do, then it's an appropriate methodology for you to use. If not, it isn't. It's as simple as that. Your argument is analogous to saying that if lots of people drive Yugos, we should all get Yugos so that we'll be able to use the same spare parts. The CF development world is large enough, and CF applications vary enough, to accommodate more than one methodology.

The quote above is excerpted from a post to the CF-Talk list on April 13, and is reprinted with permission from David Watts.

• Subscribe
• RSS

• Editorial
• Specials
• Community
• News
• Tech and Tags
• Views
• Reviews
• Techniques
• Security
• Best of ColdFusion Talk
• Knowledge Base
• Blog Watch

• Tipical Charlie