Hi Jeremy
as you know, the last place of employ, we put together the cfdodgy
framework which was dead simple and the guys are still using it (I
think)
lately I've been getting some runs on the board with Reactor (download
the files and checkout this easy to use tuitorial:
http://livedocs.reactor
If you are going to get into ORM's - also take a peek at
Transfer (mine) - http://www.compoundtheory.com/transfer/
ObjectBreeze - http://www.objectbreeze.com/
(Yeah I know, blatant plug... so sue me :o) )
Mark
On 7/13/06, Barry Beattie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi Jeremy
>
> as you kno
On a day to day basis I use Mach-ii and ColdSpring and absolutely
enjoy working with both, however there were numerous growing pains as
mach-ii is quite rigid and 'kind of' forces you to think and develop
in an OOP way. Mach-ii is definitely a big step up and be aware that
the documentation for it
We're using Mach-II, Coldspring and Reactor in combination. If I was
coming to the whole scene without previous experience I'd be tempted
to swap out Mach-II for Model-Glue for the reasons Greg states.
Trying to dive into using all 3 in one hit is probably a bit
challenging. Maybe start with an M
At work we use Fusebox my team is 4.1 with reactor (which me no like)another team is migrating from 3.0 to 5.0 (with reactor)another team is on 4.1another team is on 5.0 another team on 4.1
Personally I'll wait till fusebox 5.1 before I make the move to 5. Sean corfield is doing a brilliant job wi
Hey,
See this is my point. everyone reckons one methodology is better then
the next or like M@ said right tool for the right job. I guess my issue
is choosing the right tool. I thing Greg has it right. OOP is the way
to go. Having to deal with .NET and Powerbuilder freaks here at work
the one thi
proper cfc
development.
Regards
Dale Fraser
-Original Message-
From: cfaussie@googlegroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of
Sent: Friday, 14 July 2006 08:15 AM
To: cfaussie
Subject: [cfaussie] Re: SOT: Frameworks - cfsick
Hey,
See this is my point. everyone reckons one meth
> if CF8 has some extra OO stuff (which it should) then you might regret using
> a framework at all. But even with the current model, you can do proper cfc
> development.
Huh?
You mean better OO stuff like Java has? A lot of J2EE development is
still done using frameworks, so I don't think the "
;s just my two cents :)
Cheers
Kai
-Original Message-
From: cfaussie@googlegroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Dale Fraser
Sent: Friday, July 14, 2006 10:51 AM
To: cfaussie@googlegroups.com
Subject: [cfaussie] Re: SOT: Frameworks - cfsick
One good OO approach that will only get
wrote:
> I'm looking at frameworks in my spare timehahahaha...gezz I'm a
> nerd. Anyway, I have been looking at a few of them; including (wait for
> it) .NET well how it sorta does this.
>
> I got most of them working bar cfwheels...that just pissed me off. What
> are other people out their u
Hey Geoff,
Long time no hear. When is the next far cry coming out. I installed
FarCry once before but had issues with it. Let me know when the next
one is out and I'll have a look again. I would be interested in the
Flex one imparticular.
Jeremy
--~--~-~--~~~---~--
wrote:
> Long time no hear. When is the next far cry coming out. I installed
> FarCry once before but had issues with it. Let me know when the next
> one is out and I'll have a look again. I would be interested in the
> Flex one imparticular.
FarCry 3.0.2RC should be out this w/e assuming I clea
Sounds good.
I have been playing with Joomla which is PHP and honestly I have been
blown away at its quality. I dont know the coding but been very
impressed with the GUI and usability, But its not CF...so let us know
when its out and i'll try installing it again.
Jeremy
--~--~-~--~
13 matches
Mail list logo
