>Definitely agree with that. Why go to the trouble of dealing with all >this stuff manually when you can pick a framework and get a great head >start? >-- >Sean A Corfield -- http://corfield.org/
In our case, this application is now 5 years old, and has a ton of functionality. It is truly an enterprise application in terms of its intended purpose and the size of its codebase. Due to the size of the project and the lack of tools at the time, Fusebox wasn't attractive. So we basically rolled our own application environment. When it was written, CFCs didn't exist, so we developed a large library of cfmodules. The major reason we haven't migrated is one of practicality. Our current architecture works, scales well, is easily extendable and customizable, and is very easy to manage. It took us a half year just to migrate the cfmodules to CFCs, and that was just using the CFCs as function libraries. Now that that's done, we're working on utilizing more OO code where it makes sense. But overall, rewriting the application to use a framework at this point for us just doesn't make sense. We've got a mature, stable, very well-received application, so there's no real reason for us to move. There's no reason to migrate something that works perfectly just for the sake of being on a framework. That said, if I were starting a new application today, yes, I would almost certainly use a framework, but it would not be Mach-II - I'm much more of a fan of Model Glue at this point :) Cheers, Roland ---------------------------------------------------------- You are subscribed to cfcdev. To unsubscribe, send an email to [email protected] with the words 'unsubscribe cfcdev' as the subject of the email. CFCDev is run by CFCZone (www.cfczone.org) and supported by CFXHosting (www.cfxhosting.com). CFCDev is supported by New Atlanta, makers of BlueDragon http://www.newatlanta.com/products/bluedragon/index.cfm An archive of the CFCDev list is available at www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
