Comments on: Interview: Steven Nelson on CFC-only Fusebox

By: Josh Rountree

Josh Rountree — Fri, 31 Aug 2007 00:00:00 +0000

Anyone know of any updates on this?

By: Nat Papovich

Nat Papovich — Fri, 04 May 2007 00:00:00 +0000

Hi Tim –

Steve’s mentioned to me that he’s not interested in producing "core files" for this methodology. And he’s frequently mentioned the "methodology" aspect of it rather than the "framework" aspect. We’re big fans of coding by convention here and not having the framework dictate how to organize our code.

I don’t know if it will ever get beyond an experimental stage but this will be the forum to keep an eye on.

By: Tim

Tim — Wed, 02 May 2007 00:00:00 +0000

After looking at the examples, there appears to be a lot of potential with a CFC-only Fusebox. Once this framework gets past the "experimental" phase – would there be any plan to have some kind of codebase to develop against, or would it really remain a methodology for coding; leaving the exact implementation up to the programmer?

It seems like there is a lot of potential to implement things like security and a plugin architecture – much like the existing XML-based Fuseboxes offer – with nothing more than a few core files (much like Fusebox 3 was just a core file, and naming conventions).

Of course – I’m a little behind on this post, so maybe this is stuff you’ve already considered :]

By: James Holmes

James Holmes — Mon, 29 Jan 2007 00:00:00 +0000

OK, now you really have my attention. It sounds like the important bits of a framework are there without all the complication that FB, MG and MII bring. Do you have any plans to take it further after the experimental stage?