[thelist] Fusebox framework and PHP

[Steve Lewis]

Ben Dyer wrote:
 >Boris Mann wrote:
>> So off I went, and started digging into the Fusebox framework. Well...I
>> think the end goal is a good idea, to have a common framework, instead
>> of people having to read a bunch of docs (or code!) to figure out how
>> you wrote yours.
> Not coming from a PHP background, but I have to agree with this even for
> writing ColdFusion.  I'm not a fan of Fusebox.  I'm a fan of the concept
> (more or less).  My biggest concern is that Fusebox is designed more for
> "applications" than "web sites" (at least, this is what I feel) which I
> feel raises some problems design-wise.

I came to ColdFusion from PHP and previously from ASP.
Not much I can say unless more specifics are provided, but let me take a
shot at what I see when I read between the lines...

more appropriate for ColdFusion:
Yes, it is more appropriate for ColdFusion because ColdFusion has not
historically been a procedural or object oriented language.  That means
you don't generate 'functions' in ColdFusion like you do in most
languages and thus ColdFusion depends more heavily on creative use of
'includes' than PHP.  Beginning with CF 5.0, and improved in MX, you can
create a user-defined function but this has some limitations.

learning curve:
this depends alot on what you have seen before, but yes it is a major
paradigm shift for most folks.

stifling:
The important thing to remember when approaching style paradigm is to
take what you like and toss the rest.  There are no fusebox police!  I
liked having my queries and data manipulations all in the same file, so
I only used act_ and dsp_.  I didn't like running everything off one
page because it felt less 'modular' (was one of my primary goals) so I
made a bunch of independant apps that only had a handfull of functions
(such as browse, search, add, edit, delete, approve, reassign) driven
from one index page.

application-oriented design:
This one is tough for me to figure out... how is a dynamic website NOT
based on applications?  Can you explain where you are having troubles
with this idea?

search engine friendly URLs:
definately check that article on evolt.

--Steve