>On May 27, 2004, at 9:36 AM, Alexander Sherwood wrote:
>> Have I used Mach-II? Once, on one project. Will I use it in the
>> future? Without a doubt. Why? Because it provides an incredibly
>> flexible foundation for building web applications that can be (as
>> others have mentioned on this list) maintained and updated with
>> minimal impact on the whole system.
>
>In what way is it better at this than Fusebox? I find that my FB3 apps
>are extremely modular and can be easily maintained.
In particular, I found extending the base MachII.Listener and the event-based processing to be really, really flexible. Handling complex execution paths (Like Spectra's old PLPs) is quite easy, all while keeping the model or service layer independent of the UI.
I am finishing up a ** HUGE ** project that is basically a customizable data entry application. A month ago, the specs were updated to require that all of the services accessed by the UI be made available as a SOAP API, completely devoid of a UI. Very few changes needed to be made because of the way Mach-II requires an application to be structured. It forces separation of UI from the model, and I just don't think FB does this nearly as well. Just my $.02.
But if you like FB or OnTap or anyother framework, stick with it, for sure!
--
Alex
>--
>Damien McKenna - Web Developer - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>The Limu Company - http://www.thelimucompany.com/ - 407-804-1014
>
>----------
>[<http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=t:4>Todays Threads] [<http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:164625>This Message] [<http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4>Subscription] [<http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=808.728.4>Fast Unsubscribe] [<http://www.houseoffusion.com/signin/>User Settings]
>
>----------
><http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=36>
>9ec511b.jpg
>
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
