projects too small, you might not run into the limitations of the
framework until the 3rd or 4th app. I remember when I first started
with FB3 and thought that nested layouts were the best thing since
sliced bread. Later, I realized the limitations.
marlon
S. Isaac Dealey wrote:
> > Finally as there has been plenty discussion of FB recently
> > and its pros
> > and cons I would strongly advise anyone evaluating a
> > framework to
> > actually evaluate it by using it and *not* by soliciting
> > opinions. For
> > every argument against using fusebox there is one for
> > using it!
>
> > HTH
>
> > Kola
>
> I absolutely agree. As a matter of fact, I second it. the up-side is
> that after you've built a small app or two with any given framework
> you should have a decent feel for whether or not it's a good match for
> the way you think. The downside is that doing this does require an
> investment of time above and beyond simple research. In my opinion
> it's the only way to adequately evaluate a framework.
>
> I've done a lot of work with Fusebox 3 over the past 2 years -- which
> is why my first article with performance comparisons focused on that
> and the onTap framework -- they were the 2 I already knew. I won't be
> publishing the following articles with similar comparisons of FB4 or
> Mach-II until I have more time to learn the frameworks.
>
> s. isaac dealey 214-823-9345
>
> team macromedia volunteer http://www.macromedia.com/go/team
>
> chief architect, tapestry cms http://products.turnkey.to
>
> onTap is open source http://www.turnkey.to/ontap
>
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
