> offer structure for reusing your code.
Mach II comes closest to forcing you to use MVC since it is a direct
implementation of the MVC pattern. You write your business logic as
CFCs (the model). You write your presentation as simple CFM files (the
views). Mach II itself is the controller. Mach II essentially requires
you to know some OO techniques.
Fusebox 4 can be used in either MVC style or regular procedural style
- both ways will help you separate code from presentation (because at
the lowest level Fusebox encourages you to have files with only logic
in them and separate files with only presentation in them). Fusebox -
even in MVC style - doesn't require that you know OO techniques.
onTap is a very different system to either of these - it's procedural
like Fusebox but where Fusebox's control flow is very explicit,
onTap's is completely implicit with the framework choosing which files
to execute in what order based on the directory structure you use to
store your code. onTap provides the most 'code backup' in terms of a
rich API and library functions (Mach II and Fusebox are more about
"framework" than "functionality").
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
