Neil, > M = model = Database tier and CFCs (I am not sure what > replacement you could use in CF5...Custom Tags? CFX?) V = > View = CFML pages with no logic in them whatsoever, > everything in tags > and CFCs > C = Control = The control should really just be the bit > of your app that > decided which CFC to call, and > which CFML to display. Control should be > something that you > change very little on a day to day basis, it > mediates between > M and V.
Got that far thanks... Thing is, take CF5 as an example (because this is much more of a theoretical discussion even though I will be taking this further in CF5) at the moment, I am implementing a lot of the MVC logic in the database, and using this information to create an MVC structure around my code. CF is still procedural, and MVC is pretty much an OO thing. The concept of listeners is quite complicated in CF5 (possible in CFMX though) and I want to know if it's important, or whether or not the "snapshot" approach of MVC development is going to be enough... > In general, most CF developers probably still put too much > code into CFCs than they should but that generally and > probably an issue with CF itself; and something you cant or > wont really get around at the moment. That's a coding issue and not a methodology issue. > The CF engine itself probably does much of the "controller" > job I would say, but i'm not sure how cleanly it lets you > implement MVC, in its purest form. As with all programming, you have to tell the "black box" that runs your program (whatever that is) to do something. Of course, if I was implementing MVC on an x86 processor in assembler it would be much harder (thank God I'm not!) Paul -- ** Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/dev%40lists.cfdeveloper.co.uk/ To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For human help, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
