Well, Fusebox 3 works fine right now with MX, of course, but I think that an MX version that lets us do things like turning any fuseaction into a web service or better implementing the supertype-subtype relationship in Model View Controller architectures would be very useful. One of the things I most care about is making sure that Fusebox continues to be easy to use and in improving its ease of learning. That means that I would think that we should approach any changes asking what the impact will be on people who have already made an investment in Fusebox 3. I'm very confident that with this in mind, we can add in the new functionality of MX without breaking backwards compatibility.
I see CFCs adding some very nice capabilities to FB3, but I definitely do not see them killing Fusebox or eliminating nesting, as a couple of people on the list have suggested recently. -----Original Message----- From: John Farrar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2002 8:15 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: SuperQ functionality with the STANDARD core (Re:MVCquestion) Hal, You seem to have put a great deal of thought into CFC's... what will they do for fusebox. Where will they be useful. What they won't do is helpful... but only if you say what they will do. Is your current mindset to ignore them for global version compadibility or to develop a high breed? John >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 05/22/02 10:52PM >>> I've heard a couple of people argue/worry that CFCs will render Fusebox unnecessary, as you've done Ben. CFCs are a simple implementation of some of the qualities of first-class objects, such as Java has. But Java, even with its full fledged objects, still needs the Struts framework. I think CFCs are going to be fantastic when used with Fusebox, but I don't see a component replacing an architectural framework. -----Original Message----- From: Benjamin S. Rogers [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2002 5:48 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: SuperQ functionality with the STANDARD core (Re: MVCquestion) > Don't you understand... 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... hmmm... maybe I am wrong... but it > seems like that is the case. <plug type="Shameless"> That was actually one of the main points of an article I wrote just the other day. You may find my experiences interesting. http://www.fulgen.com/content/developerscorner1.cfm </plug> Benjamin S. Rogers http://www.c4.net/ v.508.240.0051 f.508.240.0057 ==^================================================================ 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 ==^================================================================
