> > 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? >
Fusebox will never just be ColdFusion. Fusebox is made of a bunch of ideas creating a powerful framework. We started with CF, but there have been Fusebox ports to PHP and JSP. CFCs are proprietary to CF, and will most likely remain proprietary. Which is one reason I'm not personally bending over backwards for CFCs. What happens when you realize CFCs don't do something you want in your framework? Are you going to decompile CFMX? Probably not. A goal of Fusebox is to create an open framework across technologies. Along with create an open development methodology based on the framework (FLiP). Combining the framework and the methodology and you've got a killer solution to many common development problems. CFCs may end up being just another implementation of Fusebox. As long as the implementation can achieve what the Fusebox spec states, then great, let's give it a shot. Until then, CFCs will plug in perfectly with Fusebox without changing Fusebox at all. Fusebox is not trying to create the end all be all syntax for writing web software. We're trying to reduce the awful 70% software failure rate. For many, many, many people Fusebox has succeeded in doing this, it definitely has for me. Steve ==^================================================================ 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 ==^================================================================
