facilitates the integration of Java and CFML by clearly
partitioning the MVC layers, making the division of labor obvious.
My criteria for determining when to use Mach-II is the complexity
of the business model. If the complexity is such that I want to
model it in Java, I'll use Mach-II. Otherwise, I'll keep
everything in CFMX and use a (simpler) home-grown framework.
Dave Jones
NetEffect
At 02:20 PM 5/26/04 -0700, you wrote:
>What I have heard is mostly positive. There is a lot of
>disagreement as to it's scalability compared to fusebox, and
>some people think it is overkill for smaller projects.
>
>
>But there is some consenus about the following:
>
>- Mach II apps are maintainable over time
>- the MVC design pattern is the toughest part for people to grasp
>- there are benefits to being able to use pre-built components under Mach-II
>
>
>M
>
>"Massimo, Tiziana e Federica" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > No, it's there. I've received about a dozen replies off list.
>
>It would be useful if you can summarize that with the rest of the llist. No
>need to report names, just share whatever you think it may be useful to
>others as well. Thanks.
>
>----------------------------
>Massimo Foti
>http://www.massimocorner.com
>----------------------------
>---------------------------------
>
>----------
>[<http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=t:4>Todays
>Threads]
>[<http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:164572>This
>Message]
>[<http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4>Subscription]
>[<http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=1210.1130.4>Fast
>Unsubscribe] [<http://www.houseoffusion.com/signin/>User Settings]
>
>----------
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
