There is a nice clue to be found in all this good advice. "Fusebox can be easily used to develop something as simple as a 2-page application or as complex as an entire corporate platform".
Yes it can be used for something simple, but I say it definitely should not be. I have inherited dozens of old fusebox apps where fusebox was just the wrong choice because the apps are all simple. In my opinion Fusebox is a good choice if your app has complex navigation. Otherwise consider something else. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [CFCDEV] Re: Coldbox. What do people think? Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2008 16:36:48 -0500 To: [email protected] Hmmmmm... I think I disagree with that statement. Honestly, I think that title is due to Fusebox... ColdBox is well-done without a doubt, but Fusebox has been around for 1000 years, is on it's 5th version, has a variant that follows ColdBox's lead in convention-based configuration, and the XML-using variant can be used in the classic model with modular cfm templates or in the OO/MVC model with CFCs and services, etc. So as far as the most robust, most widely used ColdFusion framework, Fusebox wins that contest hands-down. Considering that at least 5 books have been published about Fusebox, that it's been around since 1997 as a methodology and 2001 as a complete framework... let's just say it has an impressive resume. It's definitely the most-used and longest-lived of all the ColdFusion front-end frameworks, and it's undergone the most development since it's original release as a framework in 2001. As for robustness, it leaves almost the entire architecture up to the devleoper and, it can be MVC or not, etc. The net effect of this is that Fusebox can be easily used to develop something as simple as a 2-page application or as complex as an entire corporate platform. And, since it compiles it's pages down to inline CFML that are simply grabbed from cache after being run once, it's also arguably the most performant... As for the frameworks out there that mandate CFCs and an MVC architecture, ColdBox is an excellent choice... but there are things that are surprisingly incomplete, like the IoC plugin (which really only matters if you're using ColdSpring or Light Wire). Since ColdBox keeps your ColdSpring bean factory captive, using things like parent bean factories is challenging... and as for the concept of no XML, that only works if you want to build a simple site using componentName.methodName as your events. If you want to do anything much fancier than that (like implicit invocation) you have to get fancy, build your own interceptors, and configure them using XML. So while it definitely has less XML than ModelGlue or Mach-II, it's certaily not a ero-XML proposition for anything it's straight-up core functionality. Actually even for the core functionality it's not a zero-XML framework... you still have an XML config file that's very similar to fusebox.xml. Honestly, there's really nothing you can do in ColdBox that you can't do in any of the others, especially if you look at MG 3 (aka MG:Gesture). Mach-II may be there also, but my Mach-II is rusty and I haven't kept up that well. The only thing that ColdBox has going for it beyond the others is the documentation, and Fusebox gives it a run for its money at that. Although I have found the ColdBox doco hard to use and harder to find... that's got to be just me, because everyone else seems to think it's beyond cool. So yeah, I like ColdBox. It's a nice framework. They're all nice frameworks, and they all do pretty much the same thing in different ways. The most developed and most robust, however, is unquestionably Fusebox... it's got a 5-year headstart on ColdBox. Just my $2... Laterz,J On Oct 18, 2008, at 12:35 PM, David McGuigan wrote:In my CF frameworks research ColdBox stood out far and away as the most-developed, robust and advanced MVC choice on the market by far. _________________________________________________________________ --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CFCDev" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cfcdev?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
