This is a good comparison, Neil. CFObjects, like CFCs, focus on the code architecture as opposed to the application architecture. Fusebox focuses on the application architecture, and so remains viable whether you're using CFCs or not. In fact, (just to be provocative), you could use CFObjects to construct code within a Fusebox framework. Now, I personally would not take that approach, but it certainly could be done.
- Jeff On Tuesday, April 30, 2002, at 06:36 AM, Neil Clark - =TMM= wrote: > This : "CFCs imply a CFObjects sort of framework" is not true, well to > some degree. CFObjects and CFC's both mould themselves on OOP - CFC's > are a closer match than CFObjects. > > IMHO from what I have seen being developed is that it is not FB that > should be worried, it is CFObjects - Fusebox will strive along using > CFC's - and not simply by encapsulating a FB App into a webservice, but > actually using CFC's to construct a new FB methodology. > > CFObjects leverages CFML to try and mimic OOP, while CFC's are in built > with OOP (yes, there is no Polymorphism), but they are a far closer > match to OOP than CFObjects will ever be - and far more extensible - > CFC's are going to be one of the biggest assetts to MACR with regards to > Flash Remoting - again, a very powerful addition to CFAS. > > Best > > Neil Clark > Team Macromedia > http://www.macromedia.com/go/team > > Announcing Macromedia MX!! > http://www.macromedia.com/software/trial/. > > > ==^================================================================ This email was sent to: [email protected] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?bUrFMa.bV0Kx9 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^================================================================
