>> None of them will force you to use an MVC approach, but
>> all of them
>> offer structure for reusing your code.
> Mach II comes closest to forcing you to use MVC since it
> is a direct
> implementation of the MVC pattern. You write your business
> logic as
> CFCs (the model). You write your presentation as simple
> CFM files (the
> views). Mach II itself is the controller. Mach II
> essentially requires
> you to know some OO techniques.
> Fusebox 4 can be used in either MVC style or regular
> procedural style
> - both ways will help you separate code from presentation
> (because at
> the lowest level Fusebox encourages you to have files with
> only logic
> in them and separate files with only presentation in
> them). Fusebox -
> even in MVC style - doesn't require that you know OO
> techniques.
> onTap is a very different system to either of these - it's
> procedural
> like Fusebox but where Fusebox's control flow is very
> explicit,
> onTap's is completely implicit with the framework choosing
> which files
> to execute in what order based on the directory structure
> you use to
> store your code. onTap provides the most 'code backup' in
> terms of a
> rich API and library functions (Mach II and Fusebox are
> more about
> "framework" than "functionality").
s. isaac dealey 954.927.5117
new epoch : isn't it time for a change?
add features without fixtures with
the onTap open source framework
http://www.sys-con.com/story/?storyid=44477&DE=1
http://www.sys-con.com/story/?storyid=45569&DE=1
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
