In my opinion Fusebox is a good choice if you are a masochist. When I inherited my first Fusebox app, I then also promised myself and all of my future children that it would also be my last. (Oh, snap).
On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 8:53 PM, Mark Ireland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
