is this turning into a Frameworks Vs tools debate?
Imagine you're used to using both. if you had to loose one, which one would you loose? personally, I'd rather write code using a framework with Notepad than spaghetti code with VS2005. (and Scott: there's a lot of similarities between the core .NET "framework" and CF's abstraction of it's underlying Java code) On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 4:06 PM, Rae Buerckner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 >>>> 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
