It's not about the degree of control, it's about the dynamic-ness of
control. With FB, you have to use conditional DO actions for dynamic
flow, while in MG or M-II, you just broadcast an event of your choice.
Either can be used to accomplish the same task, but if you have
highly dynamic flow of control (which I'd says is the exception, not
the rule), FB will force you into a lot of nested conditionals in your
XML. Of course, inside your MG controller or M-II listener you need a
conditional to pick which event to dispatch, so it's kind of moot, but
conditionals in code are nicer than conditionals in XML, and with code
you can name your event dynamically (e.g.
dispatchEvent("event#var#")).
cheers,
barneyb
On 5/2/07, Robertson-Ravo, Neil (RX)
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But this in itself is great as it gives anyone looking to build an app who
> needs to have that degree of control to immediately dismiss Fusebox and in
> turn to select the "correct" framework (for the job).
>
--
Barney Boisvert
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.barneyb.com/
Got Gmail? I have 100 invites.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
Create robust enterprise, web RIAs.
Upgrade & integrate Adobe Coldfusion MX7 with Flex 2
http://www.adobe.com/products/coldfusion/flex2/?sdid=RVJP
Archive:
http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Talk/message.cfm/messageid:276866
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Talk/subscribe.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
