I just got around to listening to last week's ColdFusion Weekly Podcast, Version 1.25, The Fusebox 5 Edition. (For some reason I got a week behind on listening to the Weekly a few months ago and still haven't managed to catch up.) All in all I think it was one of the better versions I've heard. I think Sean Corfield gave a rather compendious overview of the history of Fusebox as well as a great description of the goals and new features of Fusebox 5. However, as a long time Fusebox user I was a little surprised by one of the questions asked. Toward the end of the interview Matt Woodward asked if Fusebox could be used to build OO CF applications. The answer of course was yes. What surprised me is that Fusebox has never really prevented users from building OO applications using the framework. Most of the major frameworks use .cfm templates for the view layer, and Fusebox is no exception. (The only framework I can think of right now that uses components for display is FarCry.)
Case in point, I'm currently working on an addition to an existing application. This new feature set is based on a fully OO domain model, managed by ColdSpring, and oh yeah, it uses Fusebox 2 as the controller. That's right, Fusebox 2. If anyone remembers how FB2 works, I instantiate my ColdSpring bean factory in the app_locals.cfm file for the new circuit, make calls to my service components (via ColdSpring) from ACT files and render the display via DSP files. Sure if I had my choice I'd be using a more modern framework but in this case I didn't. Modern frameworks have many conveniences that make OO development easier, and if you are building a new application I certainly recommend using one, but you don't have to use a framework to build OO apps in ColdFusion, and you can certainly use Fusebox if you want to. Anyway, I'm not really sure where Fusebox got the bad rap as it relates to CF and OO but I hope some people are taking a second look at Fusebox with this new release and realizing it can be used for both procedural and OO applications.