Hi Sean, I am planning on attending and am looking forward to you're talk. I was hopeing this would be a primer for it. :) I heard you're talk last year and had a bit of a look a machII shortly after ... thought I'd better re-visit it again before the conference.
-Jason -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Sean Corfield Sent: Sun 1/16/2005 3:03 AM To: CFAussie Mailing List Subject: [cfaussie] Re: Fusebox vs MachII (for ColdFusion) <plug type="shameless"> Come to MXDU and attend my talk "Frameworks: Mach II or Fusebox 4.x?" and you'll (hopefully) get the answer to your question... </plug> Seriously, the answer is long and complex. On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 23:05:07 +1100, Jason Sheedy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm not sure if this is the right place to post this, but I believe > there's allot of people on this list that are interested in this issue. > I'm in the process of building my first machII app and would like to get > some opinions on the differences with fusebox. I know they both have there > benefits, but there are a few issues I'm finding it hard to come to terms > with. > > The implicit invocation OO model used in MachII has some great potential. > However, I don't know if I'm missing something, but putting all the event > handlers into a single config file for the whole app could get kind of > hard to manage in a large scale app. For example: I'm currently working on > a fusebox4.1 app with almost 300 fuseactions and about 350 files which is > easy to manage because it's broken up into 23 circuits. (That's an average > of 13 fuseactions per circuit) Whenever I need to modify something I know > exactly where to go without having to sift through too much code. In fact > looking at the circuit structure is often redundant because of the > excellent file naming conventions used in fusebox. The mach-II demo apps > seem only to break files up in to model/view/controller and there doesn't > seem to be any file naming convention to speak of. > > I find myself asking, 'why OO in a web environment' and 'how often do you > really need to re-use code blocks'? The procedural fusebox methodology > seems to lend itself well to the step by step nature of web apps. In cases > where I have some functionality that I want to re-use repeatedly I create > a component and instantiate it in the application scope to make it > available to the whole app. I can then call the object from anywhere. > > The scenario that I'm afraid of with machII is that every time I want to > modify something I need to first look through a few 100 event handlers to > find the files that need to be modified and then I need to scroll around > through heaps of files, which may not be listed in any particular order. > Try doing that in a noisy work place. Admittedly, encapsulating all the > methods into components would cut down on the number of files, but then > you've got to deal with 100's of lines of code in each file. > > I know I sound kind of biased towards fusebox, but I'm willing to learn. > > Jason Sheedy > www.voice.com.au --- 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/
<<winmail.dat>>
--- 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/
