Mach-II, eh? I could have sworn you were a Grails man! haha On Sep 22, 2:00 pm, Matthew Woodward <m...@mattwoodward.com> wrote: > On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 10:36:46 -0700 (PDT), whostheJBoss > > <dotfus...@changethings.org> 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 > m...@mattwoodward.comhttp://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 mach-ii-for-coldfusion@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to mach-ii-for-coldfusion-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 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/ -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
