At 06:25 PM 7/29/2003 +0100, you wrote: >I had a quick look at the example too. It seems like machII is really >adding a lifecycle to cfcs?? Am I wrong? > > >WG
I always thought that Fusebox was a little too much. It was a little overkill for most CF apps, and it often confused developers and shyed them right back into spaghetti code. I like Mach-II, though. I've built my own framework (s) over the year, but with the advent of CFCs, something like Mach-II, which uses XML files to "link" components and "events" together is a damned good approach. It's very clean and easy to follow once you understand the underlying components that handle interactions. The fact that it's built on the MVC methodology is the single most compelling reason to experiment with it. Typical CF code has all kinds of code wrapped in a single template, and MVC (when followed properly) makes, as Hal stresses every chance he gets, code much more maintainable and reusable. Looking forward to learning more about Mach-II. ---------------------------------- Alex Sherwood PHS Collection Agency THE COLLECTORS T: 301.215.4200 F: 301.664.6834 W: www.phs-net.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
