Nick,
As Barney points out, the Fusebox framework itself is procedural,
but it should also be pointed out that Fusebox supports OO model
development (both indirectly and directly using ad hoc XML verbs) as
well as procedural. Should you be uncomfortable with, or else have
reservations about a full-on OO approach to building your Web apps,
Fusebox will still give you the very real organizational benefits of
MVC structure governed by an XML controller.
Some people find that an XML-controlled model and view is plenty
enough 'framework' and are happy with the degree of organization and
structure it brings. Others decide that the complexity of a typical
business model warrants at least a CFC-based model. Of course, some
go the whole hog and plumb for Model-Glue or Mach-II. Fusebox allows
you to fully avail yourself of the first two approaches and a
well-designed Fusebox app will also give you both a model components
and views that should be very easy to re-purpose into Mach-II or MG
at a future date, if desired.
Fusebox may also be a good fit if you work in an environment where
not all of your coders/developers/customers are comfortable with OO
coding.
Finally, just to echo the other posters, Sean Corfields's framework
comparison really is indispensable for comparing the fundamentals of
the big three frameworks.
Roger
Nick Tong - TalkWebSolutions.co.uk wrote:
Seth - thanks very much for you quick responce.
I do think that the CF community is moving towards the darkside (
sorry OO ) so i think it's time to move over and get involved.
Thanks again.
----------------------------------------------------------
You are subscribed to cfcdev. To unsubscribe, send an email to
cfcdev@cfczone.org 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).
An archive of the CFCDev list is available at
www.mail-archive.com/cfcdev@cfczone.org
