You're right, Dave. We're not looking to be able to incorporate Fusebox 3 (or 4) with Mach-II. We think that Fusebox is a great framework for procedural programmers. (Please, God, don't let this degenerate into yet another pro/con Fusebox debate...)
Mach-II, though, is meant to be a pure OO framework. Fusebox and Mach-II have in common some good software engineering principles, but are very different things. I'm really referring to (a) backwards compatibility and (b) cross-language compatibility. Hal Helms "Java for CF Programmers" class in Las Vegas, August 18-22 www.halhelms.com -----Original Message----- From: Dave Carabetta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 1:37 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: RE: re: Mach-II >Oooooooh... ensuring that FB3 apps can migrate smoothly over being the >primary goal (asside from consistency across multiple languages)... >that makes a lot more sense to me now. :) > You sure that's what he meant? I took it to mean versions *of Mach-II*, not Fusebox versions. One common misconception that seems to be propagating is that Fusebox is Mach-II, and they're not even close. I don't see how they could have written Mach-II to work with FB3 (or even FB4 for that matter). Although, if I'm wrong, I'd certainly like to be corrected!! Regards, Dave. _________________________________________________________________ Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
