hello, i do not know fusebox 4 very well, but i know that it's approach is procedural: when developing, you must follow a cascade approach; machii allows a oop approach to the problem and then you can use an successive iteraction in analisys-development system, i.e. you can in every phase turn back and change anything; it is really simple change specifics and/or add part never thoght before, as every part is uncoupled (yes fb4 permits uncoupling ad MVC, but these are natural in machii: uncoupling is not only separate model presentation logic, but also to separate application actors fron each oter and from application context; it also permits or forces to write high-coesion object: an object has to do 1 thing) machii does not need a wireframe (fusebuilder adalon etc.):
hope this is usefull best regards salvatore ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sam Westlake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, April 02, 2004 12:24 PM Subject: RE: [ cf-dev ] FuseBox > I have looked at mach-ii and it seems to offer all the benefits of OOP, as > you say salvatore. > > I have already built a few apps in FB 4 and am wondering if instead of > carrying on down this route I should try mach-ii instead? I have Java > programming experience so the idea of OOP is appealing but I like the way > FuseBox works. > > Apart from the design principles and uncoupling of presentation / logic / > content (FB 4 support MVC really well already), what are the other > real-world benefits? > > Kind regards, > > Sam > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: ing. fusto [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 02 April 2004 11:15 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [ cf-dev ] FuseBox > > fusebox (4 too) are procedural tools at all, machii allows an oop design and > development of applications and allows easily the use of techiques such as > high choesion and low coupling of classes, each other and from application, > design pattern as MVC and composite views, anf so on. > it' s not difficult to understand and use, also for inexpertise oop > programmers. > best regards > salvatore > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Friday, April 02, 2004 12:08 PM > Subject: [ cf-dev ] FuseBox > > > > Hi All,<BR><BR>I noticed that there is some talk on these threads of > mach-ii. I just wondered if anybody has been using FuseBox 4. <BR><BR>Any > feedback / thoughts? > > > > -- > These lists are syncronised with the CFDeveloper forum at http://forum.cfdeveloper.co.uk/ > Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/dev%40lists.cfdeveloper.co.uk/ > > CFDeveloper Sponsors and contributors:- > *Hosting and support provided by CFMXhosting.co.uk* :: *ActivePDF provided by activepdf.com* > *Forums provided by fusetalk.com* :: *ProWorkFlow provided by proworkflow.com* > *Tutorials provided by helmguru.com* :: *Lists hosted by gradwell.com* > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- These lists are syncronised with the CFDeveloper forum at http://forum.cfdeveloper.co.uk/ Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/dev%40lists.cfdeveloper.co.uk/ CFDeveloper Sponsors and contributors:- *Hosting and support provided by CFMXhosting.co.uk* :: *ActivePDF provided by activepdf.com* *Forums provided by fusetalk.com* :: *ProWorkFlow provided by proworkflow.com* *Tutorials provided by helmguru.com* :: *Lists hosted by gradwell.com* To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
