Side note: neither Model-Glue, Mach-II, nor Fusebox 5 will run on CF 4.5 or 5.0.
On 7/2/06, Claude Schneegans [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm interested to hear what you would consider a feature of FB, M2 or
MG that a
project won't need.
Just an example: support for CF 4.5 or 5 if your server
On Monday 03 July 2006 17:59, Robert Everland III wrote:
There could have been, and you would never have known :-)
Actually, because the code is open I was able to browse through the source
and see for myself.
Which is good, but neither here nor there in the whole 'framework or not'
debate.
On Sunday 02 July 2006 16:09, Claude Schneegans wrote:
Just an example: support for CF 4.5 or 5 if your server is under CFMX
and there is
no chance you go back to a lower version.
So what ? That's not a negative point of the framework is it ? As long as it
runs on what you've got, and better
So what ? That's not a negative point of the framework is it ?
Sure it is: this, and some other features you don't need, make the code
more difficult to read.
--
___
REUSE CODE! Use custom tags;
See http://www.contentbox.com/claude/customtags/tagstore.cfm
On Monday 03 July 2006 14:26, Claude Schneegans wrote:
So what ? That's not a negative point of the framework is it ?
Sure it is: this, and some other features you don't need, make the code
more difficult to read.
The whole point of a (good) framework is you don't need to read the framework
Claude,
You've tried to make your point with frameworks, but you haven't made any
factual statements. It's fine if you don't want to use frameworks, but if you
want anyone else to not use them then I think you need to document any issues
with them as opposed to things like Includes CF 4.5 and
Tom,
All of the new frameworks use CFC, so they won't even work on CF 4.5 or CF 5.
One of the frameworks I know , fusebox 3, used a cfswitch in the main file and
included a specific framework depending on which server you were on. You didn't
need this logic, you could just include the correct
On Monday 03 July 2006 15:15, Robert Everland III wrote:
All of the new frameworks use CFC, so they won't even work on CF 4.5 or CF
5. One of the frameworks I know , fusebox 3, used a cfswitch in the main
file and included a specific framework depending on which server you were
on. You didn't
There was no logic in the framework file that had
different syntax based on what CF version you were on ,
There could have been, and you would never have known :-)
Actually, because the code is open I was able to browse through the source and
see for myself.
Bob
I'm interested to hear what you would consider a feature of FB, M2 or
MG that a
project won't need.
Just an example: support for CF 4.5 or 5 if your server is under CFMX
and there is
no chance you go back to a lower version.
why set up a company with a home grown framework that you may or may
not be there to teach your succesor how to use.
There are plenty of good reasons:
- any framework already developed and in the public domain may be far
too general
and may include many feature your own project won't need;
On 7/1/06, Claude Schneegans [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There are plenty of good reasons:
- any framework already developed and in the public domain may be far
too general
and may include many feature your own project won't need;
Features your project won't need? Not likely, as public
http://www.kcwebcore.org/blog/index.cfm/2006/6/29/CFUNITED--The-Framework-Debate-Continues
From the blog:
Near the end of this mock trial, Simon made a point that set me free of the
conflict of the debate. He related an account of a project he had worked on in
England some time in the past in
The answer, my fellow CF coders, to the question of whether or not
using frameworks is a good thing, is an unequivocable YES.
Right, but frameworks are like underwear: you'll fell more comfortable
in your own.
This is what I call my underware ;-)
--
___
100 developers working on a CF project? What the heck was the project?
-Original Message-
From: Robert Everland III [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 30, 2006 8:50 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Good blog post on the frameworks debate
http://www.kcwebcore.org/blog/index.cfm/2006/6
On Friday 30 June 2006 15:19, James Holmes wrote:
So all of us who are too busy writing good code to bother
participating in the debate can continue writing good code and ignore
the debate? Good; I'll get back to work.
Heh :-)
Using a framework, and making good use of hundreds of other peoples
But my point was - are they moving to .NET and only using BD.NET in the
interim.
I don't think any of use know for sure, not even Vince and crew. Only the folks
at Myspace and Fox know the answer, and even if they told us, a management
decision could negate what they say.
Bob
17 matches
Mail list logo
