On Tuesday, August 20, 2002, at 01:56 , Patrick McElhaney wrote: > No, not at all. If Fusebox was ported to CFCs, it would all be > behind-the-scenes stuff. The main reason to port to CFCs is > that it would give us a pretty good performance boost. The two > books out now would still be applicable and current Fusebox > apps would work just fine with Hal's CFC implementation.
But the *real* benefits will come from Fusebox 4(?) which fully embraces CFCs for user code... Sean A Corfield -- http://www.corfield.org/blog/ "If you're not annoying somebody, you're not really alive." -- Margaret Atwood ______________________________________________________________________ Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
