Naturally, as with any programming decision there is a tradeoff. In my experience, unless you have a very specific performance requirement, the benefits of a framework in terms of maintainability, standardization, and team development outweigh the very small performance hit.
That said, of course Simon is correct. A well-designed object model will work just fine with Fusebox, Mach-II, some other framework, or no framework at all. On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 16:55:03 +0000, Simon Horwith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I only feel it's my duty to mention that you can still develop CF Apps > in a timely menner without the use of FB or MACH II that do utilize > proper OO techniques... and that perform better, as well. I don't want > to open a can of worms here, but thought I'd point it out. > > ~Simon > > Simon Horwith > Member of Team Macromedia > Macromedia Certified Master Instructor > Editor-in-Chief, ColdFusion Developers Journal > Blog - http://www.horwith.com > > > > > Brian Kotek wrote: > > >It might help to note that many of the same principles of OO > >development with CFCs can be applied using Fusebox 4 as well as > >Mach-II. People are starting to build fully abstracted object models > >with CFCs. When they're built correctly, you can take that object > >model and use it with Mach-II or Fusebox 4 (or both) without much > >effort. The only thing that changes is the "bridge" between the > >framework and the object model. In Mach-II, this bridge is the > >Listener. In Fusebox, it is often a set of application-scoped manager > >CFCs that take calls from the framework and feed them to your business > >model CFCs. > > > >I guess the point is, you can start honing your OO skills within > >Fusebox 4 and then whenever you feel like it give Mach-II a try. > > > > > >On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 10:32:40 -0400, Ali Awan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > >>Thanks Sean, > >>And thanks to everyone else that has posted in this thread. > >> > >>I really like Fusebox 4, and have been able to start converting my apps to > >>that. Now that I have the hang of that, I am able to at least read the > >>Mach-II code and understand it a little better. > >> > >>Thanks for all the links and info you posted, it's all beginning to make a > >>lot more sense now. I think I might check out the books you recommend on > >>your site. > >> > >>Ali > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>>On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 16:56:43 -0400, Ali Awan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>>wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>>>I'm still pretty fuzzy on the whole thing. I still can't figure out > >>>> > >>>> > >>>how to define listeners and events, in a way that makes sense for the > >>>applications I write and work on. > >>> > >>>Perhaps the story of my migration from FB3 to Mach II will help you? > >>> > >>>http://www.corfield.org/index.cfm?event=machiirewrite > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>>For now I'll probably stick to Fusebox 4, and troll the lists you > >>>> > >>>> > >>>mentioned to see if I get struck by lightning and it all makes sense > >>>to me :) > >>> > >>>Well, that's certainly a good approach if you're not really > >>>comfortable with the whole OO thing... and I think Fusebox 4.1 is a > >>>great framework to use, BTW. > >>>-- > >>>Sean A Corfield -- http://www.corfield.org/ > >>>Team Fusebox -- http://www.fusebox.org/ > >>>Breeze Me! -- http://www.corfield.org/breezeme > >>>Got Gmail? -- I have 1 invite > >>> > >>>"If you're not annoying somebody, you're not really alive." > >>>-- Margaret > >>> > >>> > >>Atwood > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Special thanks to the CF Community Suite Gold Sponsor - CFHosting.net http://www.cfhosting.net Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:185532 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
