On 12/8/05, Nathan Strutz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Fusebox 3 and especially the earlier versions pretty much did have > just a big cfswitch/cfcase statement for handline everything. Fusebox > 4 abstracts that a bit more with xml files, which, when you study it, > is a lot cooler and makes more sense, and works with an MVC > architecture a lot better. Of course, as with any framework, your app > is only as MVC as you make it. I could imagine doing a bad job at M-G > or FB4, destroying the easy-in to MVC.
You might want to download my Frameworks Presentation (PDF) and the Frameworks Sample Code (both available from the Software pod on my blog). The talk looks at Fusebox, Mach II and Model-Glue and, in particular, evolving from "traditional" Fusebox through MVC to full OO apps as well as comparing the three frameworks. The code provides nine (yes, 9!!) variants of a single application, written in the following styles: 1. traditional Fusebox 4.1 2. MVC Fusebox 4.1 3. OO Fusebox 4.1 4. Simple Mach II 5. Refactored Mach II with separate OO model 6. Fusebox + Tartan model 7. Simple Model-Glue 8. Model-Glue + Tartan model 9. Refactored Model-Glue with ColdSpring -- Sean A Corfield -- http://corfield.org/ Got frameworks? "If you're not annoying somebody, you're not really alive." -- Margaret Atwood ---------------------------------------------------------- You are subscribed to cfcdev. To unsubscribe, send an email to [email protected] with the words 'unsubscribe cfcdev' as the subject of the email. CFCDev is run by CFCZone (www.cfczone.org) and supported by CFXHosting (www.cfxhosting.com). An archive of the CFCDev list is available at www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
