An Architect's View

8 responses so far ↓

• 1 Sebastiaan // Jun 18, 2007 at 1:54 AM

  Hi Sean, maybe you could link the cropped image to the full version which might be more readable than this one. It's all about the info in the image, right?

• 2 Sean Corfield // Jun 18, 2007 at 2:06 AM

  @Sebastiaan, updated - try clicking the image!

• 3 John Farrar // Jun 18, 2007 at 7:36 AM

  Well, I wasn't on Fusebox from the "start"... but definitely before the '2.0' standard. It would be well noted that there NEVER was a public standard for 1.0 at all. In fact there was a discussion list where the whole idea of a standard was at that time on the list considered very evil! LOL But eventually the standard was established. Perhaps the genious of calling the standard 2.0 (which had no public previous version) is a curious thing.
  
  It still is by far the oldest CF standard. Yet, the previous standard was more if the community agreed you were doing fusebox you were. If they didn't then it was up for debate. (So there of course was an unwritten standard at that time.) These are all fresh memories to me because my first contribution to the community was adding to the unofficial standard the concept of protecting access to anything that was not the index.cfm file inside of the Application.cfc file. :)

• 4 John Farrar // Jun 18, 2007 at 7:38 AM

  P.S.
  SOS isn't as public now as it was in the first release. But the original SOS was based on a variation of the Fusebox 2 core. It was released before Fusebox 3 on the time line. Heh, that to me is kinda cool for where it fits in your chart. (I don't know if anyone has the old files archived... but the file used to be up on Allaire's CF file share.)

• 5 Sebastiaan // Jun 19, 2007 at 12:11 AM

  At work we're still on Fusebox 2.0, and have been since 2002. We still haven't changed, but are considering Model Glue. Mach II seems a bit overkill for us, as we don't do megalomaniac projects ;-)

• 6 Sean Corfield // Jun 19, 2007 at 1:18 AM

  @Sebastiaan, if you already know a version of Fusebox, why not look at Fusebox 5.x?

• 7 Sebastiaan // Jun 19, 2007 at 2:45 AM

  We've considered Fusebox 5 as well, seeing it's fully up2date with OO-programming possibilities. It's only the fact that the contractors we have and are hiring are already foreseen with Model Glue and Mach II. So we've narrowed it down to one of those two. The IT-department that is, because the Communications department really wanna go for Fusebox 5. I guess it's more or less what you're used to and what the developers and companies you hire are most used to using at this moment. On the other hand it is us who decide which standard to use for our products. I'll give Fusebox 5 a second look and compare it to the knowledge I've acquired on Model Glue. On first glance it isn't that different, but it's still a major leap (not for mankind, but for us!) in any direction from the Fusebox 2 version we're using at the moment ;-)

• 8 Sean Corfield // Jun 19, 2007 at 8:00 AM

  @Sebastiaan, let me know if I can help with the process - since I have experience with all three frameworks in commercial environments.

Leave a Comment