Personally I'd really like to see some comparisons also of the onTap framework along side comparable applications in FB3, FB4 and Mach-II ... Although some of the reasons behind onTap are similar (having a recognizable pattern for code reuse) I think it's fairly obvious that I had some different things in mind when I put onTap together (managing and documenting custom tags and UDF's for instance). If I get some time I might try drafting a copy of the Blogs onTap sample application (because it's small) in FB3, FB4 and Mach-II for just such an accademic comparison. ... In all honesty I hope I don't have the time to do that, but we'll just have to see when my current contract ends on the 15th.
Isaac http://www.turnkey.to/ontap ------ Original Message ------ From: Haggerty, Mike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: CF-Talk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Aug 20, 2003 11:01 AM Subject: RE: Mach II. Is it faster than Fusebox 3? >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Sean A Corfield [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2003 5:15 PM >> To: CF-Talk >> Subject: Re: Mach II. Is it faster than Fusebox 3? >> >> It would perhaps be instructive to find a reasonably sized >> FB3 app and >> then port it to FB4 and also convert it to Mach II and test >> all three. >> But that's asking a big commitment of time and effort from folks! >> >> Another factor that I think is more important is TCO based on the >> maintenance overhead of applications written in FB3, FB4 and Mach II. >> One of the prime drivers for Mach II is to address the >> maintenance cost >> overhead through the use of OO to improve reusability and increase >> flexibility (through loose coupling, encapsulation etc). > >Sean, I am in complete agreement with you that the major benefit to >using MachII will be a reduction in the cost of maintaining an >application over time. I also see the language agnostic aspects of >MachII being a big part of its value proposition, and a wonderful one >for shops that are not necessarily standardized on a single technology. > >Or couse, performance should be an important initial factor in the >decision to adopt a framework for a project, especially in the case of a >high volume Web application. The cost to maintain an application is >meaningless if a project is so slow under load that no one can stand to >use it. > >While I don't see anyone making a concurrent joint migration to FB4 and >MachII except as an academic exercise, I do think performance >comparisons will come out as people start moving applications into >MachII. > >M > >> Sean A Corfield -- http://www.corfield.org/blog/ >> >> "If you're not annoying somebody, you're not really alive." >> -- Margaret Atwood >> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com
