> to compare it
> to Mach-II? I'd be curious to see the differences both
> plus and minus.
> We are going to be re-doing our site in the coming months
> and want to do
> it using some type of framework, was going to be Mach-II
> but maybe I
> will check out onTap and see which I like better.
> Ben
Hi Ben,
Yes, I do plan to do comparisons with both Fusebox 4 and Mach-II. When
I do get around to the remaining 3 articles I plan to make the
comparisons across-the board, so there'll be a single table that'll
show execution stats for all 4 frameworks side by side.
Admittedly, I'm somewhat biased, and I may not be the best person to
develop the fusebox and mach-ii versions of the sample app, however, I
think I've been able to do a pretty decent job of making the
comparison fair and based on features that are common between them.
I've also tried to avoid making any gratuitous comments about how the
code is written (template names, number of templates, size of
templates), because these sorts of decisions are predominantly
stylistic in nature and one person's code management style may not
agree with another's. Often this sort of thing becomes something of a
religious debate, so I'm trying to minimize that as much as possible
as I feel it tends to produce a rather large noise-to-signal ratio.
At the moment, given "brute force" execution (no caching) of Fusebox
and the onTap framework, Fusebox is invariably faster -- the article
explains briefly why and how much. Although speed has never been the
major selling point for the framework, I have some theories at the
moment about how to improve performance, so possibly by the time I
write the next article the gap will be less significant.
If you do end up creating any sites or applications using the onTap
framework, let me know so I can put a blurb about it on my blog. :)
Thanks,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: S. Isaac Dealey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2003 12:41 PM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: Framework Comparisons
<snip>
> In spite of my recent lack of time, somehow I've managed
> to produce
> the first of a series of articles comparing several
> popular frameworks
> for ColdFusion development. This first article compares
> Fusebox 3 and
> the onTap framework and also provides some information
> about a hybrid
> application using both the Fusebox framework and the onTap
> API. I'm
> calling this an FBOT (pronounced "eff-bot").
> The new article can be found here:
> http://www.turnkey.to/ontap/docs/index.cfm?netaction=artic
> les/100
sorry about that line-wrap... :-/
s. isaac dealey 972-490-6624
team macromedia volunteer http://www.macromedia.com/go/team
chief architect, tapestry cms http://products.turnkey.to
onTap is open source http://www.turnkey.to/ontap
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
