Really? I thought Mach-II was an MVC framework, not a VC framework.
>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.
Well, I think that's one of the benefits of a MVC architecture,
i.e. the ability to isolate the layers and swap out as needed.
>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 to his own. I looked at FB3, didn't like it and never looked
at FB4. Mach-II is not perfect, but I think it's a nice cut at
designing a MVC-OO framework for CF development.
Dave Jones
NetEffect
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
