You might be interested in Mach-II (www.mach-ii.com). Its an implicit invocation framework that Hal Helms and a couple other guys have been working on. It's 100% OO, entirely in CFCs. I haven't played with it myself, but it looks pretty hot. I believe it's in beta now (it was alpha until recently).
cheers, barneyb --- Barney Boisvert, Senior Development Engineer AudienceCentral [EMAIL PROTECTED] voice : 360.756.8080 x12 fax : 360.647.5351 www.audiencecentral.com > -----Original Message----- > From: Shawn Grover [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 4:55 PM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: Cons to Fusebox - From the trenches > > > I undertook a project which was partially completed before I > became involed. > The project up to that point had been done in a "modified" form of FB2 on > CF5. I ran into large number of problems simply because the code was not a > full FB implementation. Had it been, a number of things would have been > easier. However, it was not in the best interests of the project to start > from scratch and rewrite the code in full FB implementation, or some other > archeticture. So, I had to work with what was there, and follow > the FB'ness > of the application as closely as possible. > > Looking back on the project, I think it was a good example of where FB was > not well suited. This was an very complex application (basically > rewriting > a desktop app to the web, but in such a way that there was no difference > between the two - either in functionality or interface). Some of > the pages > did so many different things given so many different conditions - the FB > approach hindered the process I think. I'm sure some would argue > that FB is > very good at this type of application (sorry I can't give more details - > NDA), but in my eyes, even had FB2 been implemented correctly, it > would have > made debugging and maintenance of the application extremely difficult. > > Now that CFMX can support components and most of the object oriented > approach to programming, I'm finding this to be a much better, and more > robust solution. If I can figure out how to simulate events > serverside (but > within the CFC framework), I wouldn't see a need for any other language on > the web. On the otherhand, I know FB3 and FB4 have improved significantly, > and may be as robust as applying OOP concepts. > > Shawn > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 5:25 PM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: Cons to Fusebox > > > >While I still don't like it, I do have a better understanding of > why others > >might like it, and perhaps would even agree that it may help some people > >with their development process. Without this thread, I probably wouldn't > >have that understanding. > > I find myself very much agreeing with you, Dave, in that I think > this thread > has been very educational. I do wish people would not react so personally > when someone says they dislike a particular methodology or framework. I > personally don't think one framework can solve all problems in web > development, and that each application should be viewed on its own merits > and the first question that should be asked is: What's the best tool for > this job? > > For example: Let's say you've inherited a ColdFusion application > that's not > in Fusebox, and you've got to work on it/enhance it in some way within a > short time period. Is it better to sit and recode that app to be a Fusebox > app, or is it better to take the app as is and recode where needed? I've > never coded in Fusebox (or in ColdFusion, for that matter, though > I can edit > articles on both), but I would imagine that there are times when > you'd want > to use Fusebox and there are times when time constraints/other > issues might > cause you to decide to use some other methodology/framework or your own > coding guidelines for a more generic ColdFusion app. > > Thoughts from people who are actually in the trenches here? > > Judith > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
