I would agree. Application and Data logic in a CFC.
Presentation layer still included in dsp files. One of the cooler things that we have been discussing about this is the ability to make your application logic available to multiple clients. I think that the next year or two is going to show us how big clients other than your regular HTML based browser can be. I think that Flash is just the tip of the iceberg. C++ and Java client/servers with a CF/SQL Server Backend. Man would that be sweet. More seriously though, I think that MX is going to open a whole host of new opportunities for CF developers, but I am sure it will create a bunch of new problems as well. Seems to be a 1:1 relationship with new technology. Tim Heald ACP/CCFD :) Application Development www.schoollink.net Fusebox Advisory Committee Member www.fusebox.org Manager Fayetteville ColdFusion User Group www.fcfug.org > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael Dinowitz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2002 1:37 PM > To: Fusebox > Subject: Re: FB on MX > > > I see the next level as having all DB and back end processing > placed into CFCs (components, like stacked functions inside a > wrapper). The front end designs will be in CFINCLUDEs and > CFMODULEs. UDFs outside of CFCs will be for special functions and > loaded in as libraries. This divides the work into what I > consider the proper places. I'm using this as a methodology for > the new archives. > > > > I haven't explored the full expansion on CF language for MX > yet, however I > > read about much more CFSCRIPT support. I see the next level > for fusebox as > > a set of UDF's and some very efficient, flexible script. > > > > ------------------------------- > > Adam Bellas > > "Digital Ninja" > > Full Sail, Inc. > > ------------------------------- > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2002 12:59 PM > > To: Fusebox > > Subject: FB on MX > > > > > > Well, I know that if there's not enough education on what the > different ways > > of including code in MX is, then there's going to be even more > fragmentation > > of the methodology than there is already. I'm going to record (yes, in > > audio) a piece on the different ways of including CF code for > an upcoming FA > > issue. Might help. > > > > > Anyone have opinions on the future of Fb in the MX environment? > > > > > > Tim Heald > > > ACP/CCFD :) > > > > > > Application Development > > > www.schoollink.net > > > > > > Fusebox Advisory Committee Member > > > www.fusebox.org > > > > > > Manager Fayetteville ColdFusion User Group > > > www.fcfug.org > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: McCollough, Alan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > > Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2002 12:28 PM > > > > To: Fusebox > > > > Subject: RE: FuseBox Question > > > > > > > > > > > > Well, I guess I'll post all future messages to > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: Christopher and Gina Fox [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > > > Sent: Monday, July 01, 2002 10:26 AM > > > > > To: Fusebox > > > > > Subject: Re: FuseBox Question > > > > > > > > > > Please don't send me any more emails. I'm into the coldfusion / > > fusebox > > > > > thing but I want out of the loop. I just opened my inbox > and received > > > > > about > > > > > twenty-five emails of your exchange. It's a bit of a pain. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > > From: "Michael Dinowitz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > To: "Fusebox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > Sent: Monday, July 01, 2002 1:19 PM > > > > > Subject: Re: FuseBox Question > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why useless? The question was as to the origin date. I > supplied it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for all the useless information. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > > > > From: "Jeff McNeill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > > To: "Fusebox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > > Sent: Monday, July 01, 2002 1:02 PM > > > > > > > Subject: RE: FuseBox Question > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is that 1988 or 1998??? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jeff McNeill | http://jeffmcneill.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > > > From: Michael Dinowitz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > > > > > > Sent: Monday, July 01, 2002 9:57 AM > > > > > > > > To: Fusebox > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: FuseBox Question > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > April 8, 1988 - Todd Mathews posted a call to action for a > > common > > > > > > > > framework. > > > > > > > > April 8, 1988 - The common framework was hammered > out some and > > the > > > > > name > > > > > > > > fusebox was applied. April 9, 1988 - Josh Cyr posted up the > > first > > > > > > > > fusebox resource site April 10, 1988 - Michael > Dinowitz set up a > > > > > fusebox > > > > > > > > forum and mailing list on HoF > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hows that? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I may be wrong here, but when was FuseBox developed? I > > > > thought it > > > > > was > > > > > > > > > in the year 2000 but someone has told me that > they have been > > > > > working > > > > > > > > > with it since 1998. Thanks! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Robert Bailey > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ 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 Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
