Nate Nielsen wrote: > Thanks, so far the responses have been very positive.
They should be. It's a very ambitious project, IMO. > FusionScript will never be tied to one specific framework, methodology, > etc. I didn't mean to suggest otherwise. What I was getting at is that, from the POV of FusionScript, an FB app shouldn't really look any different than a non-FB app. About the only big FB/FS problem I see is for folks using nested circuits who don't have access to the custom tags directory... they'd basically need to dump copies of the FS tags into every circuit. CFMX's CFIMPORT solves that problem, though, so it probably isn't worth worrying about much. Well, there *is* one other possible issue that springs to mind. FB is already an include-happy approach to CF... I spent an hour or two going through FusionScript last night, and I found myself thinking, "Sheesh, there go another couple hundred milliseconds to code infrastructure." :) > I'm not looking for someone to convert the FusionScript API into FuseBox > - I > am convinced it isn't possible... Oh, I'm sure it's quite possible... but why would anyone bother? :) > ...current FB documenation doesn't quite seem to fit or apply. Can you give a specific example? > 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" Hey, I'll do the latter anyway... but that's just me. :) -- 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 ==^================================================================
