> JME wrote: > > I believe I would have a difficult sell to my clients > approaching them and saying "By the way you need to fork > over more dough if you want the application I built you > last year to be a legitimate 'Fusebox x.y'application > congruent with the latest framework". It would be difficult to sell a client anything that's obviously unnecessary.
> I wonder if my clients wouldn't ask what kind of a > methodology did I sell them that after a year their > application is no longer compliant with Fusebox's core > theories. Why would the core theories change? That was the point of moving to the framework concept: to make sure the core theories are solidified and standardized and don't change in such a way that existing apps are no longer "compliant." Before FB3, I might build a "fusebox" app, and then someone else could come in and say, "That's not Fusebox! He's using 'go' instead of 'fuseaction', his FU2A tag doesn't work properly, and he's using this weird nesting thing that I'm not familiar with." Patrick ==^================================================================ 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 ==^================================================================
