If I may take a brief break from the admittedly well-deserved praise for MG:U and discuss why I am choosing not to use it. I was using MG 1.1 but I have decided to switch to Mach ii because I, personally, am not fond of the integrated MG:U/Reactor. I know you can use MG without Reactor, but that doesn't seem to be the focus of it (and I know I have seen posts mentioning that Reactor can impact your load times unless you specifically disable it in MG:U). I have on my blog expressed my dislike of three things that you need to consider when choosing MG:U (some of which specifically relate to the Reactor integration).
One is the active record pattern, which Reactor uses. I think the active record pattern reduces the flexibility of your application - I always use the example that if you decide that Reactor is too much of a drag on your site's performance, you will have a hell of a time ripping it out or trying to recreate aspects of it. I also am not fond of scaffolds, as I think in most cases they aren't very useful - however they are totally optional I suppose so I am not going to make a big fuss about them. Lastly, I just don't think Reactor is there yet. It is a great concept that Doug has put a lot of work into, but it seems to me that enormous scope and complexity has caused it to be error plagued. I am on the list and I often feel inundated with Reactor issues. Personally, I have chosen to move to Mach ii. I believe it is a solid framework and isn't all that different from straight MG (i.e. like the 1.1days) - mostly some verb changes. I like that it wants to be a solid framework and only that. If you want added functionality, there are a number of plugins available from the community (and some pre-packaged but not pre-loaded). I am also finding it is not as complex as it is portrayed - I compare it to driving stick while MG:U is automatic. I prefer stick...I like the fine tuned control it gives you. Anyway, as this post is full of MG:U fans, I am not ripping on MG:U or trying to start some framework flame war. I just think that you need to get past the hype a bit when choosing a framework. This may mean that you still choose MG:U, but it is worth considering the alternatives (Mach ii, Fusebox and ColdBox). -- - Brian Rinaldi blog - http://www.remotesynthesis.com/blog CF Open Source List - http://www.remotesynthesis.com/cfopensourcelist Boston CFUG - http://www.bostoncfug.org ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Introducing the Fusion Authority Quarterly Update. 80 pages of hard-hitting, up-to-date ColdFusion information by your peers, delivered to your door four times a year. http://www.fusionauthority.com/quarterly Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Talk/message.cfm/messageid:252980 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Talk/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
