On 11/9/05, Johan Lopes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hey man, that's what happens to everyone. Don't sweat it. Seriously, > > design patterns are sort of your "road map". It's not important > > EXACTLY how you get there, and if it's easier for you to walk around > > something, then walk around something, don't force yourself to walk > > OVER something just because the map says that's the direction you need > > to go in. > > Jeff, this is really a great analogy and I agree to a certain extent but... > > >In other words, just start off doing what makes sense to > > YOU. What makes YOU comfortable. > > I have to disagree here. This is only OK if you are 100% sure you're > the only person who'll ever work on a project. I guess it's cool to > mess around with MVC implementations on your personal projects as an > exercise - to get a feel for it. > > I've been involved in various commercial projects lately where we've > used various types of "home-cooked" MVC frameworks and experience > tells me that if you want your project to be maintainable, stay away > from the "do-what-you-like" type of MVC implementations.
Well, to be fair, and I should've been a little clear. In my analogy that would've sort of been like telling him he could just make up his own map as he went along. I think following the standards and coding practices of a framework are the most important things about them. I agree 100% with what you typed. You'll get no argument from me...lol... I should've been a little clearer. Once you've got the map, walk and traverse at a pace and level that you're most comfortable with, I think. I know some people that are absolutely fanatical that EVERYTHING be MVC to the bone, and some people that realize that some web applications tend to be less complex than people make them, and probably don't need an extensive level of adherence to MVC principles. It always seems like it's the latter that are most laid back and most at ease with their programming, in my experience. I can, and I'm sure you can too, empathize with people who are a little nervous or skittish about how best to jump into something like a framework. It takes a certain level of self confidence to sort of step in and take on structured programming and not kill yourself worrying over whether or not you're executing EVERYTHING in a perfect MVC world. I think that's the stress on people who first pick up a framework. It's not really much more than a couple of kind words and a few, "don't worry, we've all been there...jump in"s can't fix...lol. I certainly don't recommend reinventing the wheel and trying to take on both adopting a framework AND inventing one at the same time. I think the best part of frameworks, and if I'm not mistaken, the purpose of them, is to promote code reuse, and I certainly wouldn't try to invent something that the kind folks who have worked on the MVC framework have worked tirelessly on. My two Scheckles. > True, there's no right or wrong way when applying MVC. But I'll have > to agree with Mike about using something like ARP or Cairngorm. Both > of these are well-documented with full UML diagrams. This way, if you > get stuck you have a community to go to for help. > > Sorry, I didn't mean to start an MVC war or anything like that - I'll > leave that to the SmallTalk and Java gurus who have been at it since > early nineties ;-) > > Just my 2 pence. > > Cheers, > > /Johan > _______________________________________________ > Flashcoders mailing list > Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com > http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders > _______________________________________________ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
