Again, I don't want to put words in Hal's mouth, but here's a list of things that have come up in various discussions (the one containing the quote from earlier and others):
- Lack of a runtime inheritence hierarchy - Lack of the ability have instance variables - Lack of the ability to have protected and private methods and fields - Scoping issues, which may have been resolved, at least partially I suspect that the first one is the big stickler, because in order to encapsulate functionality, but allow parts of it to be extended, it is imperitive that the superclass' constructor is called, and sometimes super.methodName() as well. FBMX is not an application where such limitations can be worked around. It is a generic API that developers extend; a very different beast. The other three can be worked around, but are still a pain in the arse. My supposition is that Hal doesn't want to release something and then have MM fix any of the problems, which makes FBMX suddenly clunky or perhaps even broken. If CFCs were a few versions old, I think that hesitation wouldn't be there, or at least not as much, as long as the issues didn't make the framework overly clunky. I know he also looked at writing the framework in Java, but that never took off, because that would mean all extensions to the framework would have to be written in Java, rather than CF, which might be nice for some people, but part of the goal of FB is a shallow learning curve, or at least as shallow as possible while maintaining the potential for large-scale use. barneyb > -----Original Message----- > From: Sean A Corfield [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 6:00 PM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: Re: FBX3 AND CFMX > > > On Monday, Feb 24, 2003, at 17:51 US/Pacific, Barney Boisvert wrote: > > "I think that a version of Fusebox that uses CFCs as the base > > component is a > > long ways off as in months. There are just too many problems with CFCs > > for > > me to suggest that people rely heavily on them, which we would be > > doing with > > Fusebox MX." > > > > I have to agree with Hal's position on the matter. As cool as CFCs > > could > > be, they are still too problematic to depend heavily on. > > Well, I'm going to disagree. I don't understand why Hal is having such > problems - I've offered to help him but he hasn't taken me up on the > offers. CFCs work just fine and can be used to build high-performance, > scalable systems. I think it's very unfair of Hal to claim there are > "just too many problems with CFCs" without providing more specific > details. > > Sean A Corfield -- http://www.corfield.org/blog/ > > "If you're not annoying somebody, you're not really alive." > -- Margaret Atwood > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for dependable ColdFusion Hosting. Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
