Since I first saw Fusebox, its web site as well as some of its proponents like Steve and Nat have termed it as among other things, an architecture, an application framework, a methodology, and more recently a standard. About the only term remotely related to Fusebox is methodology.
-Matt > -----Original Message----- > From: Hal Helms [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 9:24 PM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: RE: Fusebox (was: I like CFMX) > > I certainly wouldn't want to do that any more than you would, Matt. I'm > not sure what you're referring to, though. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2002 12:16 AM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: RE: Fusebox (was: I like CFMX) > > > Indeed, more power to you for helping people. But, do you have to use > common programming terms incorrectly? Showing people techniques is one > thing, but to show a technique and pass it off as something it is not, > certainly isn't helpful the person or the community in general. > > -Matt > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Hal Helms [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 9:12 PM > > To: CF-Talk > > Subject: RE: Fusebox (was: I like CFMX) > > > > I agree there's no formal specification, Dave. We're all working > > developers and though people contribute enormously to spreading > Fusebox, > > we haven't created a formal spec. That may come at some point, but > most > > of our efforts are focused on helping people learn use Fusebox to > > achieve successful software projects. > > > > In response to your question to Steve, Tim Heald asked us to respond > to > > some Fusebox talk on the CF-List. I'm happy to try to help, but I know > > > that some folks have an animus against Fusebox that I can't help with. > > > In short, if I can offer info, I will but I respect your time too much > > > to waste it trying to convert you. Besides, my take on this is that > > we're all in this together, Fuseboxers and non-Fuseboxers alike. We > > share a common goal and a common love for creative programming. A lot > of > > people have found Fusebox helpful; some people don't. Let a thousand > > flowers bloom, as the Chinese say. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Dave Watts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 11:54 PM > > To: CF-Talk > > Subject: RE: Fusebox (was: I like CFMX) > > > > > > > > > There are two books coming out on Fusebox that should help to > > > > > alleviate the lack of available information on exactly what > > > > > Fusebox is. John Quarto and I wrote one called "Discovering > > > > > Fusebox 3" and Jeff Peters/Nat Papovich wrote one for New > Riders. > > > > > That will help people who want to find out for themselves what > > > > > Fusebox is all about. > > > > > > > > Well, hi, Hal! > > > > > > > > That's nice and all, but where's the definitive specification? I > > > > don't have to shell out for that, do I? It doesn't have to be > > > > stimulating reading, it just has to be a specification. > > > > > > http://www.fusebox.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=learn.specification > > > > > > CF and PHP are there, JSP is coming pretty soon. > > > > Well, hi to you too Steve! What did they do, ring the alarm bell at > > fusebox.org? > > > > I went there, before posting the previous post, and there's nothing > > there which is a specification. There are some implementations, > there's > > some documentation, but no specification in the formal sense. > > > > Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software > > http://www.figleaf.com/ > > voice: (202) 797-5496 > > fax: (202) 797-5444 > > > > > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for dependable ColdFusion Hosting. 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
