Fusebox Criticism
In his most recent blog entry, Hal Helms mentioned that Fusebox needs critics. Since I am a defector from Fusebox but feel a debt to that community, I will do my best to fill the role.
In his most recent blog entry, Hal Helms mentioned that Fusebox needs critics. Since I am a defector from Fusebox but feel a debt to that community, I will do my best to fill the role.
Thanks for the post. I certainly understand you being upset about Fusebox changing from version to version. I think we've got that particular bit of bad behavior licked, but time will tell...
On the issue of CFCs replacing Fusebox, I don't understand your position. It may be that this is because I favor a Model-View-Controller architecture where the view pages are just what they've always been (CFML and HTML), the model is done in objects (using CFCs and/or Java), and the controller? Well, with MVC, you still need a controller and that's exactly what both Fusebox and Mach-II are.
On your three complaints...
1. Agreed. As I said, I THINK we have this solved.
2. Messy URLS: SEO issues are much bigger than having URL variables. Even SES URLS won't really do what you want: to get your page to show up in the first 20-40 hits of a Google search. There are many other issues involved. I know a little about this because John Quarto-vonTivadar has Webtrends for a client. In fact, John has been working on some very cool stuff that will go far beyond the simplistic SES URLs. That should show up later this year in FB 4.2 or 4.3.
Messing up traffic reports: Webtrends and most such programs can be configured to work fine with Fusebox, but yes this requires configuration on your part.
Error reporting: this is something that FB 4.1 has done a much better job with. There are very specific error templates called when an error occurs. And, in fact, you can create your own custom error templates easily and have Fusebox call them when a custom error occurs.
3. Non programmers editing HTML: I don't understand this. Not having logic in display files should make it much EASIER for non-programmers to edit.
All that being said, I respect your opinion and it's just such "rants" as this that helps us to make FB better. And it's equally true that having ANY framework (Mach-II, Struts, Fusebox, Maverick, etc.) does add a layer of abstraction onto the system. For some, this abstraction layer isn't worth the cost.
Again, thanks for the feedback.
Hal Helms
Regarding my opinion tht CFCs obviate the need for Fusebox. I may not have made my point clear on that one. I recognize that Fusebox can be used with CFCs. It is just that prior to CFCs, I found it so hard to have a well-organized application without Fusebox that the problems that I mentioned were easier to deal with.
Regarding the issue of URLs. I concede that I haven't yet tried Fusebox 4 and I should do that. I do recognize that all of the issues brought up with the structure of the URLs can be worked around, but in certain environments that can be difficult. Moreover, the resulting URL annoys me personally.
As for non-programmers editing HTML, I thought it would make things easier as well. In practice, however, this hasn't been my experience. I can separate the HTML from the logic without Fusebox and I can put the HTML in the file called by the browser. Doing so allows designers that I work with to easily find the HTML. They have not been eager to learn the Fusebox structure in order to find the correct file (and since it is usually THEM paying ME, I am not in a position to force the issue).
I should also stress that I actually used (and liked) Fusebox for some time. I really appreciate all of the work that has been put into Fusebox. I do miss the levels of abstraction. I am trying to accomplish that without Fusebox and I have been doing some reading on OO and design patterns to learn the necessary skills, but it will admittedly be a while until I am at the level that I need to be for that. I need to find another good framework. If I can find a framework that I find half as useful over the next two year as I found Fusebox in the time that I used it, I will be very happy indeed.
I have found in myself a history of reversal of opinion. It wouldn't take much for me to reverse my opinion of Fusebox again in the future.
Thanks!
Steve Bryant
Visit me @ http://steve.coldfusionjournal.com/