similar tool for a job. The truth is that they both act as the
controlor for your application. Either way you go you can build the
model (business Layer) in cfc's or java classes. Then I imagine the
view portion is very similar as well although I think i heard someone
mention that the mach-ii views have to come from a cfc.
I have quite a few fb3 adn fb4 applications. Some of my fb3 apps
implement the mvc, while all of my fb4 apps do.
The real thing you need to look at when trying to decide which framework
is right for your job is what you are comfortable with. Mach-ii
implements a very OO perspective on web development, if you come from an
OO background or if that is something that interests you then mach-ii
can be great for you. FB4 is a more procedural implementation and
someone who doesnt have the OO background may find the benifits that it
offers more appealing until they hit a roadblock that Mach-ii can
overcome. But going that route and utilizing MVC, you should be able to
reimplement the controler in Mach-ii and use the same model Objects.
Which is very nice to not have to completly reimplement the whole project.
If you havnt guessed, I dont have an OO background and Mach-ii seems
very daunting to me. I have problems knowing where to draw the line
between what goes in what object. But that is my issue, and FB works
great for my needs.
Hope this helps.
sim
Marlon Moyer wrote:
> Yeah, I was kind of afraid to ask, but documentation for both seems a
> little
> lite on both sides. Plus, I'd like to get the opinions of people who have
> done both if possible.....oh, and it is Friday. It's not like any work is
> going to get done :)
>
> Marlon
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ray Champagne [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Friday, July 02, 2004 9:51 AM
> > To: CF-Talk
> > Subject: RE: Fusebox 4 MVC
> >
> > Oh, man, here we go....
> >
> > Ray
> >
> >
> > At 10:49 AM 7/2/2004, you wrote:
> > >Sorry to hijack the thread, but what does Fusebox 4 bring to the table
> > that
> > >Mach-II doesn't. I'm curious because I'm about to spend this weekend
> > trying
> > >to design a Mach-II site and was curious if I should also devote some
> > time
> > >to Fusebox 4.
> > >
> > >Marlon
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Tangorre, Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > Sent: Friday, July 02, 2004 9:46 AM
> > > > To: CF-Talk
> > > > Subject: RE: Fusebox 4 MVC
> > > >
> > > > > The controller circuit is there, it's just not explicitly
> > > > > called "controller", it's called "blog" I believe. MVC isn't
> > > > > about naming the circuits something, it's about what the
> > > > > circuits do. And you also must consider what you want the
> > > > > user to see in the URL. I thought
> > > > > www.mysite.com/index?fuseaction=blog.main was more
> > > > > descriptive than something like
> > > > > www.mysite.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=controller.main.
> > > > > Sorry if this confused you, but you can consider the blog
> > > > > circuit(s) as the "controller". Hope that helps.
> > > >
> > > > Just to add on what Brian said..
> > > > You can also alias the circuit to whatever "viewable" name you'd
> like.
> > If
> > >it
> > > > helps to keep the directory called CONTROLLER and refer to it as
> > blog,
> > > > you
> > > > can do that as well.
> > > >
> > > > Mike
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
