Re: A suggestion for FuseBox viability. . .

[Lee Borkman]

Hi Nate, Fusebox was never a methodology.  An architecture or possibly even a framework these days, but not a methodology.  For some historical reasons that I do not claim to understand, Fusebox has often been referred to as "The Fusebox Methodology", but that was and is a simple misnomer. IMHO. ;-)   Of course, along the way, many FB users have adopted methodologies that work well with the FB architecture, and much of this useful practice is now being crystalised into what is called "FLiP", the Fusebox Lifecycle Process.  You can choose FB architecture.  You can choose FLiP methodology.  You can choose both, or one, or neither.  The architecture is portable, and has been ported to several different languages/platforms.  The soon-to-be-convened Standards Committee wil no doubt be documenting in language-independent terms exactly what is and what is not FB3, so that it can be implemented for many more languages.  Even the FLiP methodology is portable, in that you can use it for doing things other than developing web applications.   In the very near future, you can expect at least one book to be published about the FB3 framework.  It has nothing to say about methodology.  No doubt there will be other books to follow that document the FLiP methodology, and that will say nothing about FB3.  And yes, there is another book about to pop up that talks about both.   In short, I hope and believe that your concerns are already being addressed.  Watch this space.   See ya, Lee Borkman The Fusebox Steering Committee   ----- Original Message ----- From: Nate Nielsen   A suggestion for FuseBox.  Seperate it -   Official FuseBox Methodology  -  Methodologies can be contained in a document and require no files.  They explore best practices for approaching common development tasks.   Official FuseBox Framework - This is basically what FB3 is.  It can require files, and take care of issues on a coding level.  You can add the handling of errors and exceptions and other widgets.  Most importantly, it can cater to specific languages.   I think many people are turned off by the fact that the FuseBox methodology is now a framework.  This also makes it impossible to actually port FB as a methodology over to other languages like ASP and JSP.   I think if the "FB Steer" folks got back to the basics of developing FuseBox as a methodology, and framework for those interested in it, -seperately- you would see many doors open to expanding FB concept on a much larger scale.   And no, I don't think this post belongs in community, and therefore - I will not take it there.   =)   Everyone's thoughts on this? ==^================================================================ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?bUrFMa.bV0Kx9 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^================================================================