On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 9:26 AM, Sandra Clark <[email protected]> wrote:
> Pretty much. To them, XML equals a fusebox like approach and they want to > get away from FB. Which is a shame, cause I'm very comfortable with MG If I were to read between the lines here I'd say this usually translates to a team that wanted to break the rules of FB and wanted to put things int he XML file that don't belong there. Logic where it doesn't belong, etc. I only point it out because this is a problem the team probably isn't going to get over just by switching frameworks. I tend to favor FW/1 on projects right now. It has a great simplicity in it's implementation but has very powerful features you can pull out when needed. I think that as a former Fuseboxer, you will also draw a lot of intuitive parallels between Fusebox's terminology and architecture and FW/1's. Subsystems are similar to Circuits, etc... FW/1 is absolutely well suited for a larger enterprise application and is fairly well documented in a minimalistic, non hand-holding way. Meaning, you may still need to drag some other developers along with you on terminology if they don't know OO already - but I think you are expecting that already. Look at the other frameworks you mentioned, but make sure you definitely fully evaluate FW/1 before making your decision. As a bonus - check out DI/1 too. -Cameron -- Cameron Childress -- p: 678.637.5072 im: cameroncf facebook <http://www.facebook.com/cameroncf> | twitter<http://twitter.com/cameronc> | google+ <https://profiles.google.com/u/0/117829379451708140985> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/message.cfm/messageid:351968 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/unsubscribe.cfm
