> I was unaware, but I'm not any longer... and all I can say is "wow".
Thanks, so far the responses have been very positive. It keeps me motivated that others will soon be taking the reigns of this project and taking it to the next level! I greedily anticipate some new functionality I know others are capable of adding in the future. . . hehe > As for FB integration... I don't see the point, honestly. But I'm > willing to be convinced otherwise by the right argument. This request is more for the FB'ers out there, not for the viability of FusionScript. =D FusionScript will never be tied to one specific framework, methodology, etc. I'm not looking for someone to convert the FusionScript API into FuseBox - I am convinced it isn't possible because of the structure of the FusionScript engine and it's needs. Similiarly, FusionScript will not require a specific methodology in order to code it's functionality properly. However, as I recently gave a CFUG presentation, (and scheduled about five more yesterday alone for the near future) - questions about integration of FusionScript with frameworks such as FuseBox were brought up. I won't pretend to be an avid FB developer, so I am not positioned to answer some of these questions regarding it. I'm just interested in those that can explain, for documentation purposes, a set of "best practices" for developing FusionScript applications in a FB environment. Because the FusionScript ActiveServer completely distorts (in a definite good way) the client-->server limitations that we are normally used to with CF, current FB documenation doesn't quite seem to fit or apply. Since FusionScript seems to be getting very popular, very fast, I would like the FB community to set standards for this new client-->server-->client development structure to be in line with their own specs - and include it into the FusionScript documentation for those that ~want~ the FB framework. Didn't want the die-hard FB'ers out there to be stranded with guessing how to implement it into their FB apps while staying within the spec. As for now, that is where they stand. It would be nice to say "There is a section of documentation provided about how FusionScript can fit appropriately into your FB apps" rather than - "I am still trying to get some specs from the FB folks to provide for you, for now - make up your own FB integration rules if you want" Make sense? =D Nate Nielsen FusionScript DevTeam [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] P.s. I have not had a single piece of feedback saying that until they understood how to implement into the FB model they would likely not use FusionScript. That would be a little silly. Again, this request is more for the FB'ers out there, not for the viability of FusionScript. =D ----- Original Message ----- From: "Roger B." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2002 1:17 AM Subject: RE: Using FuseBox with FusionScript - help? > > Nate Nielsen wrote: > > For those of you whom are unaware, I have started an open source project > > called FusionScript. > > I was unaware, but I'm not any longer... and all I can say is "wow". I > know Macromedia has to try to work Flash and CF into a unified whole for > business reasons, but this is much, much more interesting to me than > Flash Remoting and so on. > > As for FB integration... I don't see the point, honestly. But I'm > willing to be convinced otherwise by the right argument. > > -- > Roger > > ==^================================================================ This email was sent to: [email protected] 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 ==^================================================================
