> The fact that the controllers in Fusebox are made up of switch- > case statements is inconsequential. Fusebox would still be Fusebox > even if it was CFCs were doing the switching. The distributed > controller concept is what's key, not the code.
I would agree to the extent that when ColdFusion 4 introduced CFSWITCH and Fusebox gradually replaced CFIF statements CFSWITCH, Fusebox was still Fusebox. However, on a literal level, Fusebox is nothing more than a set of ColdFusion templates which organize the way we access fuses, logical components. I think that ColdFusion MX makes much of these files unnecessary. In this case, I think that the native language elements will replace what is largely identified as Fusebox. In the greater scheme of things, Fusebox is a strong community and a set of tools (like Fusedocs). I think these things can be adapted to CFCs, and other native elements, giving them more universal appeal. If this is the case, at what point is Fusebox just ColdFusion? So, maybe we're just having a semantic argument here. As the article mentioned, I was an English major once upon a time, so arguing over connotative interpretations of words is not below me. :P 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 ==^================================================================
