> Webapper is
> to leave our clients with the best result possible when we design and
> build
> web applications.��We want to make sure that they will be able to find
> developers if needed who can understand what we did easily, who can
> enhance
> what we did easily and efficiently.
It should be easy to find developers who can understand your work no
matter what methodology/framework you made use of.
> ��In addition we have several large
> clients who want to adhere to recognized and well distributed
> Standards/Frameworks not something designed by a particular single
> developer
> and not used outside of that developers domain and influence.��That
> sort of
> framework would be of no use or interest to those sorts of clients.
Then those clients must be demanding solutions that aren't written in
CFML since there is certainly no standard (de facto or otherwise)
available and even the most widely distributed Framework is use has a
low enough percentage of the CFML market that it wouldn't fit your
definition anyway.
Now I've pretty much only worked with very large clients and I just
have never encountered the desire for this.
> ��This
> also has nothing to do with religion or politics but has everything
> to do
> doing the best for our clients.��A well designed/evolved Web
> Application
> framework should be adaptable and usable for all types of Web
> Applications,
> there should be no need to have different frameworks for different Web
> Application needs.
>
That is simply not correct. Trust me, it is rather annoying to
constantly have to create a new framework when I start a new project.
If I could use a pervious framework or even someone else's framework I
would. But, time and time again I found that the best possible thing I
can do is create a new framework specific for the application.
> I also don�t understand what you meant here-���If not, many will just
> assume
> that is the case, which benefits no one except for the people behind
> MachII�
> . Perhaps I am naïve here but I actually believe, Ben Edwards, Hal
> Helms and
> Sean Corfield have the interests of the developer community at heart
> in
> their work on Mach-ii.��There are virtually no direct benefits to any
> of
> them in putting the hours into designing and evolving Mach-ii.
>
Maybe I am wrong too, but it sure does seem like Hal Helms makes his
livelihood off of Fusebox and MachII related activities.
-Matt
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
