but really, if you look at it old school, CF does have some of the same structures. When a request comes in, CF looks for an Application.cfm tag and executes it first. Same thing for Application.cfc, but that gives you an even more granular approach with the onRequest, onRequestStart, onRequestEnd, etc.
Once I stepped outside the CF ring, I saw a lot of what the O.P. saw. I got very caught up in the whole Framework/OO/DAO/Gateway/whatever hysteria. (Now I'll probably piss some people off) I think this came about because of the dismissive attitude of other programmers of other languages. I think it became a "look my dick is bigger because I program in OO now" kind of deal. It's odd that such an emphasis is placed on CF to do OO when the biggest reason you hear for using CF is the ease of development. You don't hear people say, "Look at what I can do once I edit my coldspring xml, inject my dependencies, load the transfer xml, instantiate my factory, write my model-glue dispatcher and set up my facade cfc"...no, you hear them say, "Look what I can do in one cfm template with a cfquery tag and a cfoutput statement". If you want to do OO development, why not choose a language that has stronger OO principles? On Jun 11, 2009, at 12:24 PM, Judah McAuley wrote: > > A framework, to me, sets up rules for how to organize your code. It > directs the flow of a request and shows you where to put what in order > to deal with the flow of information through that request. > > Fusebox 4 sets up that flow and the logical structure. You can > implement a variety of ways within the structure, but the structure is > dictated by the setup of the Fusebox app. That is why Fusebox is a > framework and CF is not. CF, as a language, does not impose any of > those constraints on you. > > Judah > > On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 10:18 AM, Zaphod > Beeblebrox<[email protected]> wrote: >> >> how can it not be a framework? I can write Fusebox 4 procedurally or >> OO, I could use mvc or not, I could use custom tags or cfcs, and I >> consider that a framework. You might say, well, CF is a >> language....but is it really or is it more of a DSL specialized for >> web applications...almost like a "Framework" :) >> >> >> In essence though, aren't all web frameworks procedural? Sure, they >> can have some aspects of OO about them, but at the very heart they >> respond to requests in a procedural fashion. >> >> >> >> >> On Jun 11, 2009, at 12:03 PM, Judah McAuley wrote: >> >>> >>> On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 9:35 AM, Scott Stroz<[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> cfml is not a framework..sorry...not even close >>>> >>> >>> Agreed, cfml is not a framework. As evidenced by the fact that you >>> can >>> write cfml procedurally or OO, you can do everything in custom tags, >>> you can mix presentation and business logic or separate them, on and >>> on. >>> >> >> As if freedom was a question of might >> As if loyalty was black and white >> You hear people say it all the time- >> "My country wrong or right" >> I want to know what that's got to do >> With what it takes to find out what's true >> With everyone from the President on down >> Trying to keep it from you >> >> >> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Want to reach the ColdFusion community with something they want? Let them know on the House of Fusion mailing lists Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:298326 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
