Re: [flexcoders] Re: Caringorm vs PureMVC
Thanks, Chris! I will look into Mate framework. I will have two small independent projects. I may use Mate for one and PureMVC for the other. Patricia From: gers32 To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sun, January 10, 2010 11:31:50 PM Subject: [flexcoders] Re: Caringorm vs PureMVC Hi Patricia, I spent a couple days investigating the various Flex frameworks and finally came to the conclusion that Mate was best for me. The big Plus is that it doesn't interfere with your Flex code. Among my numerous findings, the following two are pretty good: http://www.insideri a..com/2009/ 01/frameworkques t-2008-part- 6-the.html http://www.adobe. com/devnet/ flex/articles/ flex_framework. html Cheers, Chris.
Re: [flexcoders] Re: Caringorm vs PureMVC
Honestly, nobody can really answer the question of which one is better, as they all are built to server a purpose. As you are going to have to live and breathe whichever framework you choose, you really should research them yourself and try it out, then you'll know which one you prefer and which one works best with your specific project. -Julian From: Wally Kolcz To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com Sent: Mon, January 11, 2010 9:08:19 AM Subject: re: [flexcoders] Re: Caringorm vs PureMVC I, too, am using Mate. The best part is the lower learning curve and the fact that it is completely independent of your code. I use it in all my projects. Since there is NO Mate code in your Model, Managers, or Views, you can pop the framework off at any time and the application will still run. (you just have to handle to events). Even though I haven't used it, Swiz also has that reputation. Both have been referred to as 2nd generation Flex frameworks (verses Caringorm and PureMVC. From: "gers32" Sent: Monday, January 11, 2010 2:32 AM To: flexcod...@yahoogro ups.com Subject: [flexcoders] Re: Caringorm vs PureMVC Hi Patricia, I spent a couple days investigating the various Flex frameworks and finally came to the conclusion that Mate was best for me. The big Plus is that it doesn't interfere with your Flex code. Among my numerous findings, the following two are pretty good: http://www.insideri a.com/2009/ 01/frameworkques t-2008-part- 6-the.html http://www.adobe. com/devnet/ flex/articles/ flex_framework. html Cheers, Chris.
re: [flexcoders] Re: Caringorm vs PureMVC
I, too, am using Mate. The best part is the lower learning curve and the fact that it is completely independent of your code. I use it in all my projects. Since there is NO Mate code in your Model, Managers, or Views, you can pop the framework off at any time and the application will still run. (you just have to handle to events). Even though I haven't used it, Swiz also has that reputation. Both have been referred to as 2nd generation Flex frameworks (verses Caringorm and PureMVC. From: "gers32" Sent: Monday, January 11, 2010 2:32 AM To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com Subject: [flexcoders] Re: Caringorm vs PureMVC Hi Patricia, I spent a couple days investigating the various Flex frameworks and finally came to the conclusion that Mate was best for me. The big Plus is that it doesn't interfere with your Flex code. Among my numerous findings, the following two are pretty good: http://www.insideria.com/2009/01/frameworkquest-2008-part-6-the.html http://www.adobe.com/devnet/flex/articles/flex_framework.html Cheers, Chris.
[flexcoders] Re: Caringorm vs PureMVC
Hi Patricia, I spent a couple days investigating the various Flex frameworks and finally came to the conclusion that Mate was best for me. The big Plus is that it doesn't interfere with your Flex code. Among my numerous findings, the following two are pretty good: http://www.insideria.com/2009/01/frameworkquest-2008-part-6-the.html http://www.adobe.com/devnet/flex/articles/flex_framework.html Cheers, Chris.
