good to know... Anybody here been to either Hal's or TeraTech's and
could tell me what the class size was like? Might be useful in
estimating demand.
> Here at Webapper we have been using Fusebox since version
> 1.0 and have built several applications. Two were fairly
> large totaling over 2 years work for a large Energy Company
> (no not Enron!). They like Fusebox because it enables them
> to cross-fertilize developers and they find the
> maintainability costs are lower.
Oh hey, I did some work for No Not Enron. Although that was before
they changed their name -- back then they were called MCI. ;P
> With Fusebox 4.0 and Mach-II the extended use of XML
> does make using Fusebox for other than ColdFusion,
> easier. Although there is already a far well
> trodden use of Fusebox in PHP apps.
> I would love to see how onTap and Fusebox could work
> together-integrate. Those are my thoughts.
I haven't had a close enough look at FB4 yet (just haven't had the
time yet).
It's an interesting thought because I remember you mentioning the
possibility of integration between the onTap framework and Mach-II and
thinking "I need to learn about Mach-II", but it didn't occur to me at
the time to really think about integration between FB and onTap...
Now that I've given it some consideration, I definately see the
possibility of the two frameworks coexisting in the same directory
structure, and FB apps taking advantage of some of the onTap
architecture like management of custom tags and function libraries,
datasource management, etc. I was going to provide an explanation of
how or why here, but I decided instead to just put it on my blog:
http://www.turnkey.to/ontap/docs/blog.cfm
s. isaac dealey 972-490-6624
team macromedia volunteer http://www.macromedia.com/go/team
chief architect, tapestry cms http://products.turnkey.to
onTap is open source http://www.turnkey.to/ontap
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
