Just to finish the discussion, I was indeed talking about "design patterns used in the J2EE world". (excuse my english if it was not clear)
There is some nice ideas and concepts overthere. If it can nicely be applied to CF, I don't see where is the problem. (don't worry, I am not trying to do EJBs with CFCs... ;) You may be don't believe in design patterns as they expressed today, that's fine, I respect that. But some others do believe in design patterns (Fusebox or others) and do like to share them with the CF community. Sincerely, Benoit -----Message d'origine----- De : Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Envoyé : mercredi 21 août 2002 18:18 À : CF-Talk Objet : RE: Any Fusebox and CFMX issues? > I really don't understand how you can be so "affirmative". > Years of experience. ;) > - "J2EE design patterns do not apply to CFMX." > Why? Can't you apply MVC to CFMX? > Good design patterns are usually not link to technologies. > (the MVC pattern has its roots in Smalltalk, isn't it?) > Design patterns weren't originally intended to be tied to certain languages and/or technologies. However, when Sun released blueprints they did just that. Blueprints is quite simply a collection of design patterns specific to J2EE. MVC is not a specific J2EE design pattern and it did in fact come from the Smalltalk world. There is nothing inherently wrong with using MVC with CFMX, nor did I state that. I was simply disagreeing with the use of J2EE design patterns. Possibly you are confusing J2EE design patterns with design patterns used in the J2EE world. > - "CFMX is not J2EE and it never will be." > Matt Liotta (?) > "... I would not hesitate to say that ColdFusion MX is now the fastest way > to build and deploy J2EE applications..." > Jeremy Allaire (Chief Technology Officer, Macromedia) in > http://www.macromedia.com/desdev/mx/blueprint/articles/server_side_4.htm l > Come on now... you should be able to understand what Macromedia and Jeremy Allaire is trying to say here. You can build CF based applications with CFMX that are run on top of J2EE application servers. CF based applications will always be based on CF not their underlying application server. Notice how no one ever used to say CF 5 is the fastest way to build and deploy pcode applications. J2EE is a buzzword and Macromedia is being buzzword compliant. > - "I suggest creating new design patterns that make sense for CFMX and not > try to adapt J2EE." > Sure. We are waiting for your suggestions. > In my case, this exactly what I am trying to do with MVCF (and again, MVC > is > not necessarily J2EE...). > I am not in the business of creating design patterns. I don't believe in design patterns as they expressed today. I do however believe in creating cutting-edge architectures and application frameworks for web applications. My latest creation is available as a commercial product if you're interested. -Matt ______________________________________________________________________ Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
