Brian, On 7/3/06, Brian Rinaldi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Not to disagree with you, obviously you know FarCry far better than I, but > my email was based upon my experiences with prior and existing versions of > FarCry (and was not a criticism). Nonetheless, I do take a bit of issue with > calling FarCry a framework. Yes it is extensible and offers you any number > of ways of extending the core without modifying the code, but so do most > other enterprise level CMS systems I have looked at...are they all then > Frameworks?
If these CMS systems allow you to build non-CMS solutions then yes they would be generic application frameworks. I suspect its simply an issue of semantics -- though I'd argue strongly that my interpretation of the term "application framework" is widely accepted [1]. To take a slightly different tack.. if I can use FarCry to build a federated login solution for multiple applications, or a shopping cart system complete with payment gateway and billing integration, or construct a CRM solution etc. ignoring any CMS features that might be present -- at what point does it cease to be seen as a CMS? The reality is that nearly every web-based application requires a degree of content management -- it is a commodity requirement. In order to be described as a framework should we rebuild the FarCry distribution, stripping out all the built-in CMS options or is it better to leave them in there and ignore those features when we don't need them? > An argument can be made of this I suppose, but this seems to > blur the line and perhaps confuse people. I know FourQ used to be packaged > seperately from FarCry, but this does not seem to be the case any > longer...FourQ would appear to be more along the lines of what I would call > a framework based on what I know about it at this point...but as the last > time I checked I couldn't find it available for download seperately (and > wasn't what he was asking for anyway)...if it is available let me know > because I searched in the hopes of adding it to the open source list > independently. FourQ is equivalent to Reactor in terms of its role in FarCry as compared to Reactor's role in Model Glue Unity. FourQ is really quite specialised -- and although it has very specific benefits for the FarCry framework, it's specificity makes it less useful for generic use than say Reactor which can be more readily swapped in/out as an ORM. FourQ can still be downloaded independently from the FarCry SVN repos. As we thought we were the only ones using it we've been gradually internalising the ORM into the FarCry framework. If there was significant interest I'm sure it would be relatively easy to decouple. But again I'm not trying to drum up support for FarCry... really ;) We use it, we love it -- it's ideal for much of the work we do. And an increasing amount of that work done in FarCry would not be described as CMS related. Again Is suspect we're not really debating anything more than the interpretation of the words "application framework". All the best, -- geoff http://www.daemon.com.au/ [1] http://www.answers.com/topic/application-framework ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:245274 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.4 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
