Lol.. Scott you do make me laugh, in a good way ;) The difference is the frameworks in CF are about community and are open source, and Flex Builder has a plugin for CF Frameworks as does the Eclipse IDE :) Which makes the frameworks part of the tool.
Cheers, R On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 4:00 PM, Scott Barnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I wasn't there but i never missed an oppurtunity to rub his nose in that > one... chuck says hi btw :) > > .NET = Framework that's the zinger in this convo.. We agree frameworks > rock, we also agree that tools play a roll in keeping the code maitenance in > a happy state.. point is, if you're writing a framework to keep your > codebase maintainable when a tool could in theory take over the burden, then > what problem is being solved and who should own it tommorow (you own it > today, but it shouldn't stop there). > > On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 11:56 PM, Rae Buerckner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > >> Lol... I remember that breakfast Barry! >> >> >> On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 4:44 PM, Barry Beattie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> a fair point, Blair >>> >>> the other side of the equation of course is too much hand-holding that >>> it gets in the way, either by abstracting too much of the detail so >>> you don't know what's happening under the covers - or - it just plain >>> gets it wrong in edge-cases (special headers needed in CF webservices >>> spring to mind) >>> >>> I've still got a great memory of a WebDU breakfast a couple of years >>> back where Chuck was showing how easy it was to build an >>> ASP.NET<http://asp.net/> >>> application in VS2005 ... which promptly broke when he ran it and he >>> had to go back to rebuild it and apply some setting he'd forgotten ... >>> happens to the best of us. >>> >>> >>> but this isn't helping Adam much... >>> >>> Adam, if you're still reading this, revisit the CFC dev website to get >>> a feel for how important "it depends" means when someone like Sean >>> Corfield says it. >>> >>> simple things will get you most of the way there >>> - keep your view totally separate from your data access code >>> - identify the "Gold" code (ie: it costs a fortune to make) and >>> protect that "investment" (eg: from change + retesting) >>> - you can probably get away with having DAO's for single record >>> access (CRUD) and "gateway" CFC's for the rest. At least it's >>> something. Lots of choices to join up the middle bits >>> - look at what Transfer can give you as a way to get things happening >>> quickly for data access >>> - queries are more convenient (and faster) than arrays of objects, >>> structs easier to pass around than single objects >>> - you gotta know the rules before you break them but breaking them is OK >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "cfaussie" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cfaussie?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
