Mach-II is exclusively for the presentation/controller. If you build it
right, you can scrap all your Mach-II code and replace it with FB or the
other way around, or any other pair of frameworks, and the model needn't
change a lick.
I was originally really gung-ho about Mach-II, but my excitement died out
when I realized I could get almost exactly the same functionality with
FuseBox, without the complexity. Each public fuseaction is almost exactly
like an event handler, the listeners are almost identical, just don't extend
MachII.Listener, and everything from the services layer down is identical.
The way variables are passed around is different (no event object in FB4),
you're missing explicit filters (though you can synthesize them very
easily), and you can't fire additional events into a queue within the
request, but I found that I generally prefered fireing them as a separate
request (with location()) rather than same request (to get out of the
'refresh-the-form-submit' issue, for example).
Cheers,
barneyb
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dave Jones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2004 3:24 PM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: Re: OT: Mach-II
>
> I'll throw in another advantage of Mach-II. It greatly
> 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
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
