Re: [ACFUG Discuss] Frameworks
Until you have fought that battle, start where you are comfortable. If only there were enough hours in the day (and I had enough energy) to figure out where the hell that is mcg Teddy Payne [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 06/13/2006 09:18 AM Please respond to discussion@acfug.org To discussion@acfug.org cc Subject Re: [ACFUG Discuss] Frameworks It all depends on which version you choose for Model-Glue, if you want data abstraction like Reactor for ColdFusion or a serious bean factory loader like ColdSpring. Model-Glue 1.1.10 for a framework is challenging at first, but it can be done with little OO experience. There is a great deal of example on the net to show you every aspect of the framework. To be good at any framework, all you basically need to know is where to put your code so as not to remove the inate organization and seperation of the framework. If you can grasp how to create a view, how to write a DAO CFC and where to put your conditional logic for business rules then you are golden. All of these are documented and the examples on the net are very good. Notice that I used three aspects that you need to know, thus MVC. MVC is a just a label for an idea that was originally not expected to be as popular as it is now. It is not hard to wrap the head around. The only reason Model-Glue can be daunting is when you want to integrate the cool OO ideas of dynamic object loaders and data abstractors, both of which you do not have to use. The only object ideas in MG 1.1.10 that you will need to be cognitive of is the controller CFC and how you write your CFCs that modify your data. Once you have dealt with the working process of MG 1.1.10, you will see why Joe Rinehart made 2.0 . 2.0 makes it easier for creating objects and reducing your code. Until you have fought that battle, start where you are comfortable. Cheers, Teddy On 6/13/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes, I do like the 'initial' aspect of MG, but no one on our little team has any experience with it plus I am concerned about the OO skill level on the team. Would using an OO framework like MG make up for lack of OO skills? But that would be using a framework as a crutch, which I detest. mcg Dean H. Saxe [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 06/12/2006 10:29 PM Please respond to discussion@acfug.org To discussion@acfug.org cc Subject Re: [ACFUG Discuss] Frameworks Mach-ii just never clicked for me. I tried it for a week before throwing my hands up and moving to Model-Glue. Within a day the M-G style of coding was really sinking in, within a week it was like I'd never done anything differently. From an ease of use perspective I think M-G makes a heck of a lot more sense and is easier to get up and running ASAP. Of course, YMMV. Given MCG's situation, I'd stick with something that she can get up to speed on quickly which, in my mind, is M-G. Besides, it has two of the three letters in her initials. MCG - M-G ;-) -dhs Dean H. Saxe, CISSP, CEH [EMAIL PROTECTED] I have always strenuously supported the right of every man to his own opinion, however different that opinion might be to mine. He who denies another this right makes a slave of himself to his present opinion, because he precludes himself the right of changing it. -- Thomas Paine, 1783 Find out about my Hike for Discovery at www.fullfrontalnerdity.com/hfd On Jun 12, 2006, at 9:36 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have worked with fusebox and mach-ii. Fusebox was good, but mach- ii makes sense to me. I started my development work in C++ and a pure OO environment. It's a pretty simple rule: Display logic only in the view, the controller (listeners) controls flow between the model (base objects dao) and the views. The events in mach-ii are your interface from the view to the controller. Confusing to most, but it makes sense to me. I like mach-ii. ap -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of neville bent Sent: Sunday, June 11, 2006 10:55 PM To: discussion@acfug.org Subject: Re: [ACFUG Discuss] Frameworks Hi MCG, I don't often like to comment on this sort of thing but... My comments are only about easy to learn aspects of frameworks within my experience. My CF experience: Nearly 6 years now Fusebox 3 - simple Fusebox 4 + MVC - Love it Mach-ii - I still don't get it after a whole year... The Mach-ii list I found to be very unhelpful, in fact downright rude... I'm so tired of reading documentation that was written in Martian... and comments in the same aforementioned language. Whereas the FB 3 4 lists were and are a real community effort if not fragmented Mach-ii is not easy to learn. We are a team of 6 developers, 2 of whom grasp it quite well, one knows what to do with uncertainty, and the other 3 (including me), have to ask all
Re: [ACFUG Discuss] Frameworks
MCG,Here are a couple of Napolean Hill quotes that you should keep in mind when approaching technology:"Desire is the starting point of all achievement, not a hope, not a wish, but a keen pulsating desire which transcends everything." "A goal is a dream with a deadline." "Edison failed 10, 000 times before he made the electric light. Do not be discouraged if you fail a few times."Cheer up,Teddy On 6/13/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Until you have fought that battle, start where you are comfortable. If only there were enough hours in the day (and I had enough energy) to figure out where the hell that is mcg Teddy Payne [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 06/13/2006 09:18 AM Please respond to discussion@acfug.org To discussion@acfug.org cc Subject Re: [ACFUG Discuss] Frameworks It all depends on which version you choose for Model-Glue, if you want data abstraction like Reactor for ColdFusion or a serious bean factory loader like ColdSpring. Model-Glue 1.1.10 for a framework is challenging at first, but it can be done with little OO experience. There is a great deal of example on the net to show you every aspect of the framework. To be good at any framework, all you basically need to know is where to put your code so as not to remove the inate organization and seperation of the framework. If you can grasp how to create a view, how to write a DAO CFC and where to put your conditional logic for business rules then you are golden. All of these are documented and the examples on the net are very good. Notice that I used three aspects that you need to know, thus MVC. MVC is a just a label for an idea that was originally not expected to be as popular as it is now. It is not hard to wrap the head around. The only reason Model-Glue can be daunting is when you want to integrate the cool OO ideas of dynamic object loaders and data abstractors, both of which you do not have to use. The only object ideas in MG 1.1.10 that you will need to be cognitive of is the controller CFC and how you write your CFCs that modify your data. Once you have dealt with the working process of MG 1.1.10, you will see why Joe Rinehart made 2.0 . 2.0 makes it easier for creating objects and reducing your code. Until you have fought that battle, start where you are comfortable. Cheers, Teddy On 6/13/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes, I do like the 'initial' aspect of MG, but no one on our little team has any experience with it plus I am concerned about the OO skill level on the team. Would using an OO framework like MG make up for lack of OO skills? But that would be using a framework as a crutch, which I detest. mcg Dean H. Saxe [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 06/12/2006 10:29 PM Please respond to discussion@acfug.org To discussion@acfug.org cc Subject Re: [ACFUG Discuss] Frameworks Mach-ii just never clicked for me. I tried it for a week before throwing my hands up and moving to Model-Glue. Within a day the M-G style of coding was really sinking in, within a week it was like I'd never done anything differently. From an ease of use perspective I think M-G makes a heck of a lot more sense and is easier to get up and running ASAP. Of course, YMMV. Given MCG's situation, I'd stick with something that she can get up to speed on quickly which, in my mind, is M-G. Besides, it has two of the three letters in her initials. MCG - M-G ;-) -dhs Dean H. Saxe, CISSP, CEH [EMAIL PROTECTED] I have always strenuously supported the right of every man to his own opinion, however different that opinion might be to mine. He who denies another this right makes a slave of himself to his present opinion, because he precludes himself the right of changing it. -- Thomas Paine, 1783 Find out about my Hike for Discovery at www.fullfrontalnerdity.com/hfd On Jun 12, 2006, at 9:36 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have worked with fusebox and mach-ii. Fusebox was good, but mach- ii makes sense to me. I started my development work in C++ and a pure OO environment. It's a pretty simple rule: Display logic only in the view, the controller (listeners) controls flow between the model (base objects dao) and the views. The events in mach-ii are your interface from the view to the controller. Confusing to most, but it makes sense to me. I like mach-ii. ap -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of neville bent Sent: Sunday, June 11, 2006 10:55 PM To: discussion@acfug.org Subject: Re: [ACFUG Discuss] Frameworks Hi MCG, I don't often like to comment on this sort of thing but... My comments are only about easy to learn aspects of frameworks within my experience. My CF experience: Nearly 6 years now Fusebox 3 - simple Fusebox 4 + MVC - Love it Mach-ii - I still don't get it af
Re: [ACFUG Discuss] Frameworks
MCG,On 6/13/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes, I do like the 'initial' aspect of MG, but no one on our little team has any experience with it plus I am concerned about the OO skill level on the team. Would using an OO framework like MG make up for lack of OO skills? Just to expand a bit on what others have already stated: you can't use MG without learning OO to some extent. But if your team is at all familiar with using CFCs, they've begun to work with objects. And the whole bit of separating things into proper tiers and keeping encapsulation is something you learn as you go along. You can develop without that separation and things will work fine. Maintenance will be harder, but that's part of the learning curve. For instance, when I built my first Mach-II app, I understood the idea of calling listener objects. But I aggregated both the business rules and the database code within those listeners. That's not good OO design, but it works. And I learned how to separate things better for the next project. For me, at least, learning to use a framework that is object-oriented helped (is still helping) me learn OO concepts. I think that would be true for your team, too.Besides -- what you actually have to learn to get started in MG (or Mach-II, for that matter) is not so much object orientation, but rather the use of an event model, and how components can be created to listen for events or messages. You also have to learn how the framework puts events and views together. And you have to get used to the Model-View-Controller concept. But you could construct an entire application by creating a single Controller to do everything. And within that Controller, you could place all your business logic and database code. While that's not an ideal architecture, by any means, it works. And it's not awful to build things that way while learning. Actually, it teaches you a lot. If you download Sean Corfield's Frameworks sample code (which I believe has already been mentioned in this thread), you'll see that even Sean -- in this simple application -- aggregated a lot of stuff that he would normally separate into different components/objects. They work - but he readily states that these samples shouldn't be taken as best practices. (This is also a useful set of apps because it shows the same app in multiple frameworks, including MG and Fusebox.) -- Thanks,TomTom McNeerMediumCoolhttp://www.mediumcool.com530 Means St NW, Suite 110Atlanta, GA 30318404.589.0560 - To unsubscribe from this list, manage your profile @ http://www.acfug.org?fa=login.edituserform For more info, see http://www.acfug.org/mailinglists Archive @ http://www.mail-archive.com/discussion%40acfug.org/ List hosted by FusionLink -
Re: [ACFUG Discuss] Frameworks
Mach-ii just never clicked for me. I tried it for a week before throwing my hands up and moving to Model-Glue. Within a day the M-G style of coding was really sinking in, within a week it was like I'd never done anything differently. From an ease of use perspective I think M-G makes a heck of a lot more sense and is easier to get up and running ASAP. Of course, YMMV. Given MCG's situation, I'd stick with something that she can get up to speed on quickly which, in my mind, is M-G. Besides, it has two of the three letters in her initials. MCG - M-G ;-) -dhs Dean H. Saxe, CISSP, CEH [EMAIL PROTECTED] I have always strenuously supported the right of every man to his own opinion, however different that opinion might be to mine. He who denies another this right makes a slave of himself to his present opinion, because he precludes himself the right of changing it. -- Thomas Paine, 1783 Find out about my Hike for Discovery at www.fullfrontalnerdity.com/hfd On Jun 12, 2006, at 9:36 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have worked with fusebox and mach-ii. Fusebox was good, but mach- ii makes sense to me. I started my development work in C++ and a pure OO environment. It's a pretty simple rule: Display logic only in the view, the controller (listeners) controls flow between the model (base objects dao) and the views. The events in mach-ii are your interface from the view to the controller. Confusing to most, but it makes sense to me. I like mach-ii. ap -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of neville bent Sent: Sunday, June 11, 2006 10:55 PM To: discussion@acfug.org Subject: Re: [ACFUG Discuss] Frameworks Hi MCG, I don't often like to comment on this sort of thing but... My comments are only about easy to learn aspects of frameworks within my experience. My CF experience: Nearly 6 years now Fusebox 3 - simple Fusebox 4 + MVC - Love it Mach-ii - I still don't get it after a whole year... The Mach-ii list I found to be very unhelpful, in fact downright rude... I'm so tired of reading documentation that was written in Martian... and comments in the same aforementioned language. Whereas the FB 3 4 lists were and are a real community effort if not fragmented Mach-ii is not easy to learn. We are a team of 6 developers, 2 of whom grasp it quite well, one knows what to do with uncertainty, and the other 3 (including me), have to ask all the time. And I concur with other comments. Architecture decisions are very important. I've seen some nasty FB 4 ( 3) code written around less than well thought out architecture. my .02 cents From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: discussion@acfug.org To: discussion@acfug.org Subject: Re: [ACFUG Discuss] Frameworks Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 15:45:00 -0400 Thanks everyone for all the links. And I thought I would be bored this weekend, lol. Seems like the consensus is that Model Glue is the framework of choice these days. Any votes/biases for anything else? mcg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - To: discussion@acfug.org From: Cameron Childress [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 06/09/2006 03:28PM Subject: Re: [ACFUG Discuss] Frameworks MCG - There's a pretty good quickstart guide for MG http://www.model-glue.org/quickstart/index.html If you have an hour or so to sit down and go through the guide, you should have a feel for whether or not it's suitable for your development team's skill set. It does have a lower learning curve than Mach-II, and seems to have a very good balance of features. -Cameron On 6/9/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How quickly do you see team members with little OO experience picking this up (MG is OO only, correct?)? - To unsubscribe from this list, manage your profile @ http://www.acfug.org?fa=login.edituserform For more info, see http://www.acfug.org/mailinglists Archive @ http://www.mail-archive.com/discussion%40acfug.org/ List hosted by http://www.fusionlink.com - - To unsubscribe from this list, manage your profile @ http://www.acfug.org?fa=login.edituserform For more info, see http://www.acfug.org/mailinglists Archive @ http://www.mail-archive.com/discussion%40acfug.org/ List hosted by http://www.fusionlink.com - - To unsubscribe from this list, manage your profile @ http://www.acfug.org?fa=login.edituserform For more info, see http://www.acfug.org/mailinglists Archive @ http://www.mail-archive.com/discussion%40acfug.org/ List hosted by http://www.fusionlink.com
Re: [ACFUG Discuss] Frameworks
I *really* like Model Glue. A lot. I used it in HacmeShipping (being released next week from Foundstone) and it took me a few days to get up and running. After that it was easy-squeezy.-dhs Dean H. Saxe, CEH[EMAIL PROTECTED]"[U]nconstitutional behavior by the authorities is constrained only by the peoples' willingness to contest them" --John Perry BarlowFind out about my Hike for Discovery at www.fullfrontalnerdity.com/hfd On Jun 9, 2006, at 2:02 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:So I have this large, new application we are DESIGNING (yes, actually taking the time to do this) and the question of framework/methodology is starting to come up, since we are working on prototyping aspects of the system. The theory is that we will be running this on CFMX 7; but this isn't set in stone yet (but it would make SO many things easier). I only have FuseBox 3 experience and part of the current app is in FB3 - needless to say it hasn't left the best taste in my mouth. There is one other team member with some MachII FB experience and another member with no framework experience at all. My goal in choice of framework is simple: ease of use and flexibility. Ease of use goes beyond being knee deep in the code, but easy for a newbie to pick up as well. And newbie being team members picking it up to whomever ends up supporting it in the future. I am shooting for this application, once complete, to be able to be supported by a junior level developer (or only a part time senior level developer). Promise I'm not trying to start a flame war on lovely Friday afternoon, just looking for some opinions, articles, etc. Thanks, Mary-Catherine -To unsubscribe from this list, manage your profile @ http://www.acfug.org?fa=login.edituserformFor more info, see http://www.acfug.org/mailinglistsArchive @ http://www.mail-archive.com/discussion%40acfug.org/List hosted by http://www.fusionlink.com-
Re: [ACFUG Discuss] Frameworks
Thats what we are going to use for the ACFUG site rebuild... any Model Gluers out there want to jump in? On 6/9/06, Dean H. Saxe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:I *really* like Model Glue. A lot. I used it in HacmeShipping (being released next week from Foundstone) and it took me a few days to get up and running. After that it was easy-squeezy. -dhs Dean H. Saxe, CEH [EMAIL PROTECTED] [U] nconstitutional behavior by the authorities is constrained only by the peoples' willingness to contest them --John Perry BarlowFind out about my Hike for Discovery at www.fullfrontalnerdity.com/hfd On Jun 9, 2006, at 2:02 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So I have this large, new application we are DESIGNING (yes, actually taking the time to do this) and the question of framework/methodology is starting to come up, since we are working on prototyping aspects of the system. The theory is that we will be running this on CFMX 7; but this isn't set in stone yet (but it would make SO many things easier). I only have FuseBox 3 experience and part of the current app is in FB3 - needless to say it hasn't left the best taste in my mouth. There is one other team member with some MachII FB experience and another member with no framework experience at all. My goal in choice of framework is simple: ease of use and flexibility. Ease of use goes beyond being knee deep in the code, but easy for a newbie to pick up as well. And newbie being team members picking it up to whomever ends up supporting it in the future. I am shooting for this application, once complete, to be able to be supported by a junior level developer (or only a part time senior level developer). Promise I'm not trying to start a flame war on lovely Friday afternoon, just looking for some opinions, articles, etc.Thanks,Mary-Catherine - To unsubscribe from this list, manage your profile @ http://www.acfug.org?fa=login.edituserform For more info, see http://www.acfug.org/mailinglistsArchive @ http://www.mail-archive.com/discussion%40acfug.org/List hosted by http://www.fusionlink.com- -- Steven Rossweb application interface developer http://www.zerium.com[phone] 404-488-4364 - To unsubscribe from this list, manage your profile @ http://www.acfug.org?fa=login.edituserform For more info, see http://www.acfug.org/mailinglists Archive @ http://www.mail-archive.com/discussion%40acfug.org/ List hosted by FusionLink -
Re: [ACFUG Discuss] Frameworks
I'll second the recommendation for Model-Glue. I've built apps using MachII, and I've having to re-learn some stuff now that I'm working with Model-Glue. But overall, I would say that Model-Glue will be easier to learn. Just know that either requires learning object-oriented architecture, which is its own giant step. In fact, I'd say that's the biggest hump to get over: getting into an object-oriented, tiered mindset. Another reason to consider Model-Glue is that there is heavy development going on in integrating ColdSpring (a framework that does depency injection and a bunch of other stuff) and Reactor (an ORM framework that creates active records somewhat like Ruby on Rails does, and lets you create or update a record by just doing ' myRecord.save()' - without having to write the query statement) with Model-Glue. You don't have to use these to use Model-Glue, but you'll probably want to. All of these frameworks are on track to release at CFUnited late this month (at least, they hope so). The core will be Model-Glue 2.0, which Joe Rinehart, the developer, is calling a Unity release. Take a look at http://www.model-glue.com and Joe's blog entries at http://clearsoftware.net/index.cfm?You can find info about ColdSpring at http://www.coldspringframework.org/index.cfm? and Reactor at http://www.doughughes.net.All three frameworks have very active - and helpful mailing lists.-Thanks,TomTom McNeerMediumCoolhttp://www.mediumcool.com 530 Means St NW, Suite 110Atlanta, GA 30318404.589.0560 - To unsubscribe from this list, manage your profile @ http://www.acfug.org?fa=login.edituserform For more info, see http://www.acfug.org/mailinglists Archive @ http://www.mail-archive.com/discussion%40acfug.org/ List hosted by FusionLink -
