On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 6:50 AM, John Whish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think Jared got it spot on. Coldbox probably has the best online > documentation, but Fusebox is by far the most mature and is incredibly > robust and has proved itself to be fast. Fusebox also tries hard not to > force the developer into using OO, procedural or even MVC. Pretty much the > only thing it does enforce is the front controller design pattern.
I am sure it is spot on for him, but not for me - surely a preferential selection for everyone for their own reasons. I used Fusebox in the 3.x days, never went to 4 as it did not meet my needs so I was using my own concoction until MG & CB came along. I have worked on Fusebox 5.1 this year and I dislike it even more now. I never had an issue with XML in MG, but in FB, adding logic to the XML with Lexicons to me is ridiculous. If you are going to do that, why not just have it all CF, a.k.a. CB. So you have CF, XML and Lexicons in FB, all 3 you have to be aware of to follow an app. Correct me if I am wrong, but although you do not have to use the XML version of FB, aren't you required to in order to use plugins? Also, I am wondering if FB will be able to integrate into Flex Apps as MG and CB can. As far as forcing a developer to learn OO or MVC at a minimum in my eyes is a good thing, from a medium size app on up. That forcing is what has helped me come along in those areas and write better more robust code. Just my opinion of course - whatever works for you and what ever works for your client. Dan --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CFCDev" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cfcdev?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
