Re: [CFCDEV] "Light" framework?

[Nando]

Joe, I know Model-Glue doesn't look "light" - but if you use the quick start guide and just try to actually build something, you might find it a lot lighter than it looks at first. And you don't really need to know much OO to use it. In fact you don't need to know any. You just need to try it out, work through the quick start guide and actually build something simple, and ask a few questions to the list and you'll know how to use MG. It takes an evening or two to get started, and most of the work is just figuring out how to install everything and what IDE to use for the XML part. The reason i'm suggesting this is because with the integration of Transfer and ColdSpring, MG makes it very easy to build applications. Some very smart people have done a lot of work and a lot of thinking for you. You may find yourself doing a lot more work and a lot more thinking with a "Light" framework ... especially if you build it yourself! (I'm speaking from experience here!) I actually think MG is a little easier than Fusebox to learn. Many people may be used to the Fusebox concepts of circuits and fuseactions and plugins and plugin points, etc so perhaps it seems easier in the CF community. I think MG is simpler in the sense that there is just a simple XML language to learn and you just glue your model and view together there. If you're not familiar at all with using CFC's, well that's a prerequisite for MG. But if you are, you'll find that you won't have to do much if any OO design or thinking to build an application. If you use Transfer and ColdSpring with it (both are very easy to pick up if you just try them out) just about the only thing you may need to figure out in an OO sense is to add a service layer to your application rather than doing everything in the controller. And that's easy too, once you get past the lingo and see what it means.* *(It means instead of the controller doing the actual work, it asks another CFC to do it. The advantage this gives you, if and when you need it, is another application can ALSO ask the service layer to do the same things. In other words, separating out the service layer gives you the freedom to have different "bosses" asking the "workers" - service components - to do their jobs.) That's pretty much the only OO you'll need to know to build some pretty robust applications using MG. But if you don't know how to use CFC's ... ummm, i was going to say then Fusebox is your only choice, but i changed my mind ... bug me and i'll write a series a blog posts called Rediscovering CFC's, and then you'll know how! :-) Nando Joe Lakey wrote: Is there a "light" CF framework--something that we novice coders with little or no OO background could use to transition to the more elegant, comprehensive frameworks? If not, I'd like to know if there's any interest in creating one. I would work on it myself, but seeing as I'm only barely familiar with the existing frameworks, I'm not very well qualified to build any kind of bridge to them. Thanks, Joe You are subscribed to cfcdev. To unsubscribe, please follow the instructions at http://www.cfczone.org/listserv.cfm CFCDev is supported by: Katapult Media, Inc. We are cool code geeks looking for fun projects to rock! www.katapultmedia.com An archive of the CFCDev list is available at www.mail-archive.com/cfcdev@cfczone.org -- Aria Media Sagl CP 234 6934 Bioggio Switzerland www.aria-media.com You are subscribed to cfcdev. To unsubscribe, please follow the instructions at http://www.cfczone.org/listserv.cfm CFCDev is supported by: Katapult Media, Inc. We are cool code geeks looking for fun projects to rock! www.katapultmedia.com An archive of the CFCDev list is available at www.mail-archive.com/cfcdev@cfczone.org