I've been using Fusebox since 1999, and a few months ago, I decided to try Mach II on a noddy internal app, just to see how it would go
On the whole, I think it's definitely the way to go for the future, and I can see the power and benefits of it but I'm still reluctant to fully migrate to it for time-critical client projects until I've had more practice. It *IS* a big shift, in ways that are quite subtle and hard to pin down - the biggest difference I found was getting used to designing everything from the basis of events. e.g. Say you have a list of items which can optionally be filtered by category, using a select box at the top of the page. In FB, you'd probably have one fuseaction for "showItems" and pass an optional parameter to that same fuseaction which contains the chosen filter. In Mach-II, the selection of a filter category should be a *SEPARATE* event : events do NOT equate directly to fuseactions. I struggled with getting this to work for a good couple of hours before it finally dawned on me. Also, something didn't feel quite right about the way parameters are passed between objects and methods... it worked, of course, but it just didn't feel like it was quite as elegant as it could be. Of course, Mach II is a work in progress and it will no doubt evolve pretty quickly. IMHO, Fusebox didn't really achieve anything like its full current power and elegance until at least XFB (version ~2.5, if you can call it that) and more like version 3. I'm sure Mach II will follow a similar path. And, like I say, I only used it on one noddy project and that was about six months ago, so I'm not a Mach II expert by any means. We ended up adopting a hybrid of Fusebox 3 using CFC calls instead of act_ and qry_ fuses, and that works perfectly well for us. We'll try a "proper" Mach II implementation next time we get a "from scratch" client project in where the deadline is loose enough to give us time to get it right. HTH Alistair Alistair Davidson Senior Technical Developer Headshift.com ------------------------------------------ HEADSHIFT >> www.headshift.com T: 020 7357 7358 ------------------------------------------ smarter > simpler > social > personal techie blog: http://instantbadger.blogspot.com -----Original Message----- From: Russ Michaels (Snake) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 06 September 2004 11:39 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [ cf-dev ] Mach-II and farcry This list has been very quiet lately. I am seriously thinking about trying out Mach-II and am in the process of using farcry, just wanted some feedback. For those that already used a framework, be it Fusebox or their own, how does Mach-II compare. Have you been converted, RE farcry, is it actually any good, how does it compare to the likes of commonspot or shado. I'm still having problems with installation so it's getting on my tits a bit now. Russ -- 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]
