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 ==^================================================================
