fusebox5 (still in beta) is being designed to be completely backwards compatible with 4.1, it'll offer improved implementation of the framework an then I guess you could start taking advantage of all that new functionality in future development.
On 6/9/06, Earl, George <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Greg said: > > I think us folks who like frameworks are building enterprise web > > applications. . . . > > ... snipped ... > > and: > > ... snipped ... > > Unless you are completely versed in the latest FB4.1 or 5 . . . > > I have been watching the explosion in numbers of frameworks for CF with > great interest. > > The second comment above about using the 'latest FB4.1 or 5' is one that > concerns me. As someone who participates in building large enterprise > web applications, I'd love to adopt a framework and get all of the > resulting benefits that have been discussed here. But we have a hard > enough time with the logistics of just upgrading versions of CF (we > still haven't made the jump from CF5 to CF6\7 in my area, primarily > because of an extremely aggressive application release schedule). I > don't know enough about frameworks to know the answer to this question, > but unless the process of modifying an enterprise application to > accommodate upgrades\updates to the framework that has been used is > relatively easy I don't see how we could keep up with the framework. Or > am I overestimating the complexity of what is involved in upgrading to a > new version of a framework? > > George > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:243026 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.4 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
