An Architect's View

8 responses so far ↓

• 1 John Farrar // Jun 5, 2007 at 8:40 PM

  Where is the feature list?

• 2 Sean Corfield // Jun 6, 2007 at 1:31 AM

  @John, the features aren't nailed down yet because we're only just at the alpha but plans include:
  
  - myFusebox.do(action="somecirc.somefa") - a dynamic 'do'
  
  - ability to omit fusebox.xml (and use FUSEBOX_PARAMETERS struct in index.cfm instead)
  
  - ability to omit circuit.xml (and have the core allow a variety of alternatives, including CFCs as circuits or .cfm fuses as fuseactions).
  
  Documentation is in progress (but has mostly been posted to the fusebox5 mailing list).

• 3 Russ Johnson // Jun 6, 2007 at 8:04 AM

  "- ability to omit circuit.xml (and have the core allow a variety of alternatives, including CFCs as circuits or .cfm fuses as fuseactions)."
  
  This is HUGE for me!! My only real gripe with the direction Fusebox has gone over the years has been having to use those xml controllers. I started looking at Coldbox mainly because of the xml controllers.
  
  Cant wait for a beta so I cant update skweegee with some CFC based controllers. Great work!

• 4 pydanny@gmail.com // Jun 6, 2007 at 10:18 AM

  Fusebox without xml? No more silly xml situps?
  
  AWESOME!!!
  
  Now if I could just convince the Model-Glue team of the same...

• 5 Adam Howitt // Jun 6, 2007 at 4:19 PM

  Well, don't forget that Fusebox 3 still runs without XML and runs well. Think of fusebox versions as different flavors but the bottom line is that there are thousands of great FBX3 apps out there...

• 6 Sean Corfield // Jun 6, 2007 at 5:18 PM

  @Adam, one of my goals is, eventually, to allow Fusebox 3 applications to be executed by some future version of Fusebox 5.x (or 6.x), thus re-unifying the two streams. The move to make XML optional in Fusebox 5.5 is the second step on that path (rebuilding the core files with CFCs representing application, circuit and fuseaction was the first step).

• 7 John Farrar // Jun 6, 2007 at 6:16 PM

  Granted... there are lots of great FB3 apps. Yet, they don't have a data scheme that allows them to mix if installed together. They don't have shared look and feel technology so you can adapt them together. And they aren't written on the same authentication base.
  
  So... will these features be added in FB5.5?

• 8 Sean Corfield // Jun 6, 2007 at 10:08 PM

  @John, well, I created a rough p.o.c. FB3 compiler when I built FB5.0 but it really was just an intellectual experiment. FB55 brings it a little closer by supporting alternative circuit implementations. Look for partial FB3 support in FB56 perhaps with increasing levels of support in subsequent releases.

Leave a Comment