First off - great to see the conversation moving. I look forward to hearing the ideas that are out there.
A couple months before Adam announced FuseNG, he and I were writing back and forth about the Fusebox core in regards to some questions that had arisen during the development of FuseCache, which is a pluggable caching mechanism I've been developing for Fusebox. After getting into the nitty gritty Adam asked if I would be interested in incorporating it into the core of FuseNG, which I gladly agreed to do.
Regardless of what comes of Teratech and 4CFF, etc. that offer still stands, even if it's just donating the concept and the code. Feel free to take the source and run with it.
--- On Sat, 11/21/09, Jason Daiger <jason@...> wrote:
From: Jason Daiger <jason@...> Subject: Re: [fusebox5] Re: Ideas for improving fusebox To: fusebox5@yahoogroups.com Date: Saturday, November 21, 2009, 5:47 PM
Sean Corfield wrote:
Due to the long history associated with the Fusebox name, branding
is
important and "just ... a rename" would not really do what is needed.
TeraTech would need to sign over the copyright to 4CFF (which is
required of any project coming under the 4CFF umbrella). When Michael
was approached about releasing Fusebox in the summer, he took his
usual passive aggressive stance, claimed not to understand why the
name was important
I have to agree that the name is important. There are a lot of folks
out there that will not have any idea FuseNG is really Fusebox. We
should use what pressure the community can to help TeraTech realize
releasing FB to the community is the correct thing to do. It's a shame
TeraTech is not engaging in the discussion. I emailed Micheal directly
when these discussions started and asked him to get engaged on the
topic. To date, there is still an obvious silence from TeraTech.
I was thinking of what might make good enhancements to fusebox since the list has been discussing the fact that there are no need for any. Personally I think...
... I'm pretty certain you already can write a mixed XML / no-XML application... Enabling the no-XML just makes it possible to write a circuit as a CFC or a...
... Sean, When I tried it I could not get it to work for me. Maybe that was in a Beta as it was a long time ago. The main issue I had was that I could not work...
... You could not it was all implicit, if you checked out the additions I made that I never released stable I added that ability. You just pointed to the CFC...
My wishlist: * Declare CFC-based circuits in fusebox.xml so you get the same path configuration abilities as XML circuits * Mix in CFC-based circuits with...
Add one more to my wishlist: * Ability to declare fusebox.parseCircuit=true, to parseAll but constrained to a single circuit But all of this is for nothing...
Just to point out, it doesn't need to be "someone" - there's absolutely nothing stopping a *group* of people getting together and helping to implement...
These are all great ideas everyone! Just a few minutes ago, I contacted the 4CFF group and ask them if they would consider taking an interest in the Fusebox...
...and I'm on the board. ;) I'm not sure about what would look like an "officially supported framework" when 4CFF is more concerned with application...
Wouldn't Teratech have to release their rights to it for that to happen? Seth From: fusebox5@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fusebox5@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of...
Fusebox is Open Source, under the Apache license - anyone can take the code and do pretty much what they like (so long as they preserve attribution and keep...
... Correct, which is how FuseNG happened in the first place. ... Due to the long history associated with the Fusebox name, branding is important and "just ......
... I have to agree that the name is important. There are a lot of folks out there that will not have any idea FuseNG is really Fusebox. We should use what...
Hey all, First off - great to see the conversation moving. I look forward to hearing the ideas that are out there. A couple months before Adam announced...
Offline 
Send Email
