> or parsed files. Mach II is an MVC-based framework driven by an > implicit invocation architecture - using events and listeners.
I read over some Mach II docs last nite. If i am right, atleast the doc refers so http://www.mach-ii.com/downloads/Intro%20to%20Implicit%20Invocation.pdf Events (generated by an Action) Listeners (xml Controller helpers/mapping activated by the Controller Action) The above is the Base Idea of Jakarta Struts. Now add some spice.. dynamically execute sub-actions/object methods and pass the data for the requested action to the requested variables. You end up with the Controller dynamically figuring out... 1. Data for the End View 2. Variables for the end view (From what you specified in the listener/mapping) 3. End View Template to Load. e.g. <cfinclude template="#variables.viewTemplate#"> Where "viewTemplate" variable is the path to end view Template, assigned by the controller. The controller code is tight, when you dump #variables#.. you get all the data for the given page.. Only variables scope are used in view templates. Joe Eugene ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sean A Corfield" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2003 11:44 AM Subject: Re: Anyone using Jakarta Struts for cfmx? > On Monday, Jul 14, 2003, at 20:37 US/Pacific, Joe Eugene wrote: > > Interesting.. didnt know Hal Helms and group were working on another > > Framework Project. > > They've just about finished Fusebox 4 (an evolution from Fusebox 3 but > a fairly radical one in my opinion) and Mach II is now in beta - note > that the primary architect of Mach II is Ben Edwards. His connection to > Fusebox is that he created the J2EE version of Fusebox 3. > > >> Interesting... looks a lot like Mach II (nee Fusebox MX). > > I havent looked deep into Fusebox MX, its still in beta. Honestly, > > didnt quite understand the whole idea of Circuits/Parsed files etc. > > You're confusing Mach II with Fusebox 4. Mach II doesn't have circuits > or parsed files. Mach II is an MVC-based framework driven by an > implicit invocation architecture - using events and listeners. Fusebox > 4 OTOH perpetuates fuseactions, fuses, circuits etc. That's why Fusebox > MX got renamed to Mach II - there was really no similarity to earlier > Fusebox frameworks. > > > I would rather just use a base Controller/Parser and multiple > > Controller helpers.. alot like Jakarta Struts.. Minus some of > > the Complexity in Struts. > > You should look at Mach II. It's less complex than Struts and it's a > nice clean CF implementation of MVC. > > Sean A Corfield -- http://www.corfield.org/blog/ > > "If you're not annoying somebody, you're not really alive." > -- Margaret Atwood > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
