RE: [CFCDev] MVCF at benorama.com

[Robert Bailey]

Title: MVCF at benorama.com

I have been having a lot of speed issues myself with FB on an MX box, does a little more then drive one crazy. FBMX is a little slow coming, and I am not even sure it will be promising enough, I am a little scared it may discount some of the great features of CFMX, but then again I do not know much of the new specs they are going give us. I just took a look at this MVCF, and looks great, something that I have been using for the most part, which has proven to be both fast and easy to manage.

 

I am not one that would put something together like this, simply not enough time. I am going to read this in more depth, but looks great.

 

Thanks!
Robert Bailey
Famous for nothing

-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Davis, Eric
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2003 1:55 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [CFCDev] MVCF at benorama.com

Link: <http://www.benorama.com/coldfusion/>
Word ver.: <http://www.benorama.com/coldfusion/patterns/MVCF.doc>

Has anyone looked really hard at this one? What are everybody's thoughts on this?

I'm looking for a replacement to Fusebox 3 for MX - FBMX is too slow coming, and probably won't make much sense anyway (I'm guessing it'll be quite obfuscatory and rather difficult to implement the first five to ten times).

He's put together quite a presentation, and he about has me convinced, if only I can simplify the structure a bit. I'm trying to find the right methodology for my team here to use, and they're NONE of them big methodology-users.

Anyway, just haven't seen any threads about this, and wondered if you folks had anything to say on the subject.

Which of course you must; you always do. ;)

Thanks,
ecd.

--
Eric C. Davis
Programmer/Analyst I
Georgia Department of Transportation
Office of I.T. Applications
404.463.2860.158
[EMAIL PROTECTED]