On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 11:36:00 +1100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 1) Dreamweaver templates - Yes or No > No - Reason, its better to learn the old skool approach vs letting an IDE > dictate how you bring it all together.
If you're doing a completely static (HTML) site, DW templates are very useful but as Mike and Scott say, if you're doing a dynamic CFML site then you're better off using <cfinclude> and building standard layouts (both Fusebox and Mach II will help here). > > I'm working in Dreamweaver. I see lots of people talking > > about HomeSite and others (Eclipse?) but I'm comfortable in > > DW. I used to do all of my CFML in DW. Now I do all of my CFCs in Eclipse (CFEclipse) and my presentation layer in DW since it has such a good visual layout mode and CSS support. > Yeah, peters using fusebox which is basically a framework setup to > accommodate most overlap situations. Theres kind of two flavours in that > regard, FuseBox4 (which I think is more suited to your needs - based on the > current info) or Mach-II. Mach-II is my personal favourite as its more > tailored to an OO approach (if its possible). Having said that FB4 in itself > is not exactly a cutdown version as it appears. If you're new to programming, Mach II will be very overwhelming. I use - and advocate - both frameworks. Fusebox 4 has a much easier learning curve and will provide structure to really help you make your code maintainable. > Get to know the framework if you want to do this, as it will not only save > you some time in what I call "pioneering" but it will be a good start to > learn from, in that get a perspective on how others write code and make use > of various "patterns" in their code. Most importantly though it will open > your mindset into code-reuse. Join the Fusebox forums - there's a good Getting Started forums where newbie questions are welcomed: http://www.fusebox.org/ You can also find out more about both frameworks here: http://www.corfield.org/fusebox/ http://www.corfield.org/machii/ > If you have a 20k application.cfm it will be condesed at compile time. I at > this point cannot say for certain, but I'm pretty sure that the > application.cfm is basically converted to a java based class of some kind > which will cut away a lot of the fat - basically its condesed to binary as > opposed to a open ASCII file. It is compiled to Java bytecode, as is all CFML. -- Sean A Corfield -- http://www.corfield.org/ Team Fusebox -- http://www.fusebox.org/ Breeze Me! -- http://www.corfield.org/breezeme "If you're not annoying somebody, you're not really alive." -- Margaret Atwood --- You are currently subscribed to cfaussie as: [email protected] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aussie Macromedia Developers: http://lists.daemon.com.au/
