If I understand the question correctly, and I agree with Roger than such a parsing can be difficult :), then I agree with him.
I don't see anything stellar in CFMX that leaves me panting to convert FB to a CFMX-only version, though I can see how some aspects of CFMX will eventually make FB that much easier to encapsulate and extend. But how many people in the whole world are seriously using CFMX on production servers right now? Uh, like ... eight? I think we've got plenty of time to figure it all out, wouldn't hurt anything if 6 months or a year went by before "FuseboxMX" emerged in any complete sense other than just an experiment in playing with CFMX. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Roger B." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2002 5:28 PM Subject: RE: SuperQ functionality with the STANDARD core (Re: MVC question) > > John Farrar wrote: > > Don't you understand... > > I'm never sure I do, actually. You can be a bit difficult to decipher at > times. :) > > > that if you don't want to move the standard to MX then you are > > dedicating resources to develop an alternate way of doing what MX > > is ready to do... > > If I'm interpreting this correctly... I agree. > > -- > 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 ==^================================================================
