that they are outdated and may not reflect "best practices" for the
current version of the framework(1.0.9). Sean Corfield has some good
info in the Mach-II dev guide at
http://livedocs.macromedia.com/wtg/public/machiidevguide/ which helped
me get up to speed as well as asking a lot of questions on the Mach-II
list.
Ben
-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Jones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 4:37 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: CFINVOKE vs CreateObject - Flogging OOP!
Nikhil,
What worked for me was to take one of the sample apps
(ContactManager) and first get it running on my local machine.
Then I started modifying and replacing its pieces with pieces of
my own test app (all still in CF) until I had a good sense for
how all the pieces worked. Then it was just a matter of building
my own Java objects to use as the Model components of the app.
I should confess that I don't strictly follow the Mach-II
conventions. I like keeping my applications as ignorant as
possible of the underlying framework. Fortunately, Mach-II is
very accommodating. I use filters and listeners as 'shims'
between the framework and my app; they are the only pieces that
speak Mach-II. So, for example, my filters build out variables
for my views in the request scope so that the views can stay
generic (and not require knowledge of Mach-II's event scope).
Dave Jones
NetEffect
At 02:26 PM 3/31/04 -0400, you wrote:
>Dave,
>At first glance Mach II seemed similar to Struts......I've had
>difficulty getting good documentation on Mach II with most of
>the stuff on the Mach II site very sketchy as to the framework
>API. I know I can start trying to understand the framework
>source code, but is there an easier way like say a book or
>something. Did you start using the framework right after
>studying one of the example applications?
>
>Nikhil
>
> >Nikhil,
> >I agree with you for the most part. I think the addition of CFCs
> >to CF is a big step forward, but the partial implementation of
> >OOP is frustrating (the lack of overloading and interfaces are
> my pet peeves).
> >
> >However, I think it's okay that CF is not full OOP. The solution
> >for me is to use a mix of CF and Java, each doing what it does
> >best. To me, CF runs circles around JSPs and tags for
> >presentation, while Java is superior for modeling business
> >objects and processes.
> >
> >So, I use a MVC architecture, with CF handling the VC and Java
> >the M. Mach-II appears to provide a nice framework for cleanly
> >separating the responsibilities between CF and Java. I'm doing
> >this on a current client project and so far have been pleased.
> >
> >Dave Jones
> >NetEffect
> >
> >
> >At 11:56 AM 3/31/04 -0400, you wrote:
> >>[
>
>----------
>[
________________________________
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
