But you have time to write all these uneducated opinions? On 7/3/06, Snake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Unfortunately I have a full-time job, so I don't have the luxury of just > taking time off at a whim to play with new frameworks. > Things like this have to wait until I have some free time. > > snake > > -----Original Message----- > From: Greg Luce [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 03 July 2006 13:55 > To: CF-Talk > Subject: Re: Framework suggestions > > Stop "imagining" and actually try it. > > On 7/3/06, Snake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I would imagine this is a pain to debug, because any errors will be in > > the compiled pages (which u can't view I presume if they are compiled > > to > > memory) > > not in the code you actually wrote. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Nathan Strutz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: 03 July 2006 04:05 > > To: CF-Talk > > Subject: Re: Framework suggestions > > > > XML is certainly not easier for CF developers to use, but it does > > accomplish a few important things. > > > > First, it's not language specific. This is the weakest point because > > not many people care whether or not they can move their controller > > layer between different languages, but it sounds nice. > > > > Second, it forces you to watch how much logic you put into your > > circuits & fuses. A lot of people were shortcutting and taking > > advantage of the circuits, putting code like cfqueries in there, but > > the limited XML syntax forces you to stand back and think about your > application. > > > > Third, it's easier to parse. I mentioned yesterday in this thread that > > the XML is parsed into plain cfml files, but it's not just a > > translation of cfif, cfinclude, cfset, etc. There are a few compiler > > directives, specifically the "do" action, which compiles and includes > > inline the contents of another fuseaction. This is what gives a lot of > > the performance benifits over FB 3. Instead of cfmodule or cfinclude, > > the code is on the same parsed file. > > > > So the syntax isn't simpler or easier, but the outcome is probably > > worth it. > > > > -nathan strutz > > http://www.dopefly.com/ > > > > > > On 7/2/06, Claude Schneegans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > >>The FB5 core is basically a > > > >>compiler that transforms the XML into vanilla CFML. > > > > > > OK, but what's the big idea? > > > Is XML any simpler or easier to use than CFML? > > > > > > -- > > > _______________________________________ > > > REUSE CODE! Use custom tags; > > > See http://www.contentbox.com/claude/customtags/tagstore.cfm > > > (Please send any spam to this address: [EMAIL PROTECTED]) > > > Thanks. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:245317 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=89.70.4 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
