On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 10:36:46 -0700 (PDT), whostheJBoss <[email protected]> wrote: > The simple question is... which? And why?
Since you asked ... Of course I'll say Mach-II. The link Peter provided gives you some good info, but to summarize: * Enterprise features such as caching and logging * Ability to create and manage large scale applications with modules * Fine-grained control over events with filters and plugins * Fantastic new front-end tag libraries coming in 1.8 * Manage different environments (dev, staging, production) easily * Big plans for 1.9, and certainly for 2.0 Is MG a bad choice? No, but you're asking the Mach-II list so there you have it. ;-) > (Does one make using external frameworks like ColdSpring / Transfer > easier? Nope, both integrate with these other frameworks well. I'm not sure what MG is doing on the ColdSpring front these days, but we now have a ColdSpring Property that we develop as part of the Mach-II project as opposed to relying on a plugin built as part of the ColdSpring project. > Does one make working with remote requests more simple? Doubt it, but again, I don't know what MG does for remote requests. As long as you return XML or JSON from an event AJAX requests work fine. Flex is a different beast and you'd likely be calling your service layer directly. > Does > one provide faster development? Totally subjective. Can't really answer that one. > Does one provide better separation? Again, that really is subjective. Depends on the developer. Neither framework forces you to organize things in a certain way. > More flexibility? No idea what you mean here--I'd say Mach-II simply because of the plugin and filter features. With plugins and filters you can easily layer functionality on top of events and even at specific points during event execution extremely easily. This gives you a ton of flexibility in my opinion. > Is one easier for laying out content? I think they're very similar in this aspect, but you'll definitely want to check out all the great HTML and front-end tag libraries and functions coming in Mach-II 1.8. This can make dealing with your view layer a whole lot easier. > Is there a > strong caching system in one or the other? Yes. Mach-II's caching system is flat-out awesome. MG has caching but last I knew it didn't have nearly as much granularity and sophistication as what's in Mach-II. > Does one favor convention? Neither one is a "convention over configuration" framework at this point. I believe MG has some scaffolding features but not having used them I can't speak to how they work. Hope that helps. -- Matthew Woodward [email protected] http://mpwoodward.posterous.com identi.ca/Twitter: @mpwoodward Please do not send me proprietary file formats such as Word, PowerPoint, etc. as attachments. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to Mach-II for CFML list. 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/mach-ii-for-coldfusion?hl=en SVN: http://greatbiztoolsllc.svn.cvsdude.com/mach-ii/ Wiki / Documentation / Tickets: http://greatbiztoolsllc.trac.cvsdude.com/mach-ii/ -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
