TallyList : mailing list management, archiving, and analysis

Archive of:
CF-Talk
Cold Fusion - Technical

home
24 hour view
quick stats
weekly updates

all tallylists
corporate solutions
archive your favorite
help / feedback

About Cold Fusion :
product's home
product's list home

Archived TallyList / CF-Talk:
Subject: RE: Fusebox

mikec@aeps.com (17p/+1r) Posted: Tuesday 26 Dec 2000
This post: 83 views, +0 rating

aw hell even i can answer that Hal, from what i understand of cfobjects , its the only methodology that makes truly modular parts to your applications. In fusebox its just written in a modular way, cfobjects contains the whole thing in its own little world, which to me is what i call real modular framework, it also makes reusability even easier i think. i suspect the best would be somewhere in between fusebox and cfobjects

MikeC

> ** Original Subject: RE: Fusebox > ** Original Sender: "Hal Helms" <hal.helms@TeamAllaire.com> > ** Original Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 18:35:07 -0500

> ** Original Message follows...

> > Yes, there's definitely that argument, Dave -- and it's a good one. Someone > once posted a question on the CFObjects forum, "If you're going to do OO, > what not just do Java?" I'm still waiting to hear a good answer. > > I think CFObjects can be a good bridge for folks moving from CFML to a true > OO language such as Ruby or Java. > > Hal Helms > == See www.ColdFusionTraining.com for info on "Best Practices with > ColdFusion & Fusebox" training, Jan 22-25 == > > > -----Original Message-----From: Dave Watts [mailto:dwatts@figleaf.com] > Sent: Sunday, December 24, 2000 5:06 PM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: RE: Fusebox > > > > I agree with Hal. The major problem with CFObjects is that you > > have to tackle the additiona learning curve of an OO methodology, > > *and* the documentation/sample-apps leave a lot to be desired for > > a person new to the methodology. If CFO only had a like Hal hawking > > it, it'd get a much wider notice :) > > I'd argue that the major problem with CFObjects is something completely > different. I don't think tacking object-orientation onto CF - which is > pretty much a batch-processing environment - is such a great idea. If you > want to write OO code, you'd be better served with an OO language. > > Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software > http://www.figleaf.com/ > voice: (202) 797-5496 > fax: (202) 797-5444 > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Paid Sponsorship ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Get Your Own Dedicated Win2K Server! Instant Activation for $99/month w/Free Setup from SoloServer PIII600 / 128 MB RAM / 20 GB HD / 24/7/365 Tech Support Visit SoloServer, https://secure.irides.com/clientsetup.cfm.

Similar Subject Line Posts (+/- two weeks of this post)

Re: Fusebox queston	05 Jan 2001	(69 v/ +0 r)
Fusebox queston	05 Jan 2001	(60 v/ +0 r)
RE: practical fusebox questions	26 Dec 2000	(57 v/ +0 r)
practical fusebox questions	26 Dec 2000	(69 v/ +0 r)
RE: Fusebox	26 Dec 2000	(56 v/ +0 r)
RE: Fusebox	26 Dec 2000	(57 v/ +0 r)
RE: Fusebox	26 Dec 2000	(113 v/ +0 r)
Re: Fusebox	26 Dec 2000	(56 v/ +0 r)
RE: Fusebox	26 Dec 2000	(71 v/ +0 r)
RE: Fusebox	26 Dec 2000	(50 v/ +0 r)
Re: Fusebox	26 Dec 2000	(64 v/ +0 r)
RE: Fusebox	26 Dec 2000 (this post)	(83 v/ +0 r)
Re: Fusebox	26 Dec 2000	(60 v/ +0 r)
RE: Fusebox	26 Dec 2000	(67 v/ +0 r)
Re: Fusebox	25 Dec 2000	(65 v/ +0 r)
Re: Fusebox	25 Dec 2000	(61 v/ +0 r)
RE: Fusebox	24 Dec 2000	(62 v/ +0 r)
RE: Fusebox	24 Dec 2000	(69 v/ +0 r)
RE: Fusebox	24 Dec 2000	(51 v/ +0 r)
RE: Fusebox	24 Dec 2000	(57 v/ +0 r)
RE: Fusebox	23 Dec 2000	(55 v/ +0 r)
RE: Fusebox	23 Dec 2000	(57 v/ +0 r)
Re: Fusebox	22 Dec 2000	(65 v/ +0 r)
RE: Fusebox	22 Dec 2000	(62 v/ +0 r)
RE: Fusebox	22 Dec 2000	(63 v/ +0 r)

Send a reply to the CF-Talk list!
	NOTE: Many lists will reject your post unless you have already registered with them. Also - don't forget the right account to send from (for those with multiple emails!)