I'm starting a new thread... this was supposed to be a thread about someone's interest in ColdBox...
As for this subject, the only quibble I had with what was said in the original post was that ColdBox was the most developed, robust and advanced MVC choice "on the market". And really my only quibble was with the "most-developed" part, although I suppose I question the other two. And, to address a couple of other points in this thread: 1) You are in no way required to use the XML vocabulary to build an application. You are in no way required to use the lexicons to build an application (although it is possible to run a ModelGlue app against the Fusebox core by way of Lexicons... very freakin cool.) You rarely actually have a need for a plugin because most of what you're going to need to do can be done in any of the pre-request hooks that the framework provides. 2) Fusebox, from the minimalist's perspective, is a couple cfml templates with cfquery tags in some and cfoutput tags in others and XML to tie them together... think of it as nothing more than a way to build old-school inline CFML pages and yet keep logic and display separate. There's nothing to it and I wouldn't build an application that I was going to do anything with unless I was using at least Fusebox in this model. OTOH, I may choose ColdBox or ModelGlue... depends on the situation. However, what I will say is that I would not be particularly keep to release any application, even if it's only 2 pages, without seriously considering breaking my logic, my queries and my display into separate templates which I then simply stick in individual fuses and tie together with other fuses. It's not rocket science. 2.5) Using the XML vocabularly is a hotly contested and widely debated subject. Personally I like it... and to be utterly, bluntly honest I don't care if it doesn't meet with the approval of the purists out there. When I'm doing "classic Fusebox" I tend to view the controller circuit's XML AND the associated CFML templates as a comprehensive whole that form the controller layer, and knowing that it all cooks down to a CFML template I know that I'm basically using "inline includes" to build the framework's output. 3) The full functionality of the XML variant is not yet available in the no-XML variant (as with ColdBox, the more functionality you want, the more XML you have to use), but it's being looked at and worked on. 4) There continues to be a huge number of misperceptions and urban legends surrounding Fusebox. We (I, Team Fusebox, someone) needs to compile a list of them and then write up some "dispell the myths" articles on the subject. The disheartening thing about this is the fact that people who could be benefitting from the framework aren't because they "heard from someone who took over a Fusebox project what a mess it makes of things" or "had a speaker at their CFUG who hates Fusebox, so I never looked into it." Again, in the most minimal implementation, to use Fusebox is simply to reorganize your code so that you're building small, cohesive bits of CFML that are then made available to the framework via fusionactions, which, in turn, are bound together by larger fuseactions, which are then used to create execution paths thru the application from a URL to a display. It's not rocket science... it's just abstraction, encapsulation (of a sort) and cohesion in a procedural application. It's not for everyone, for sure, but if people are gonna rip on it they should at least do it from an educated perspective. Laterz, J On Oct 20, 2008, at 7:49 AM, Dan O'Keefe wrote: > > 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. ... --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
