Kees Jongenburger wrote:
-Hybernate is better in performance but less flexible in it's datamodel
approach.
it's the opposite
-ejb is very powerfull and very structured, but unsutable for rapid
development (i think, without knowing the world about ejb).
-spring delivers a strong separation between your code and the framework
(as well as a means to intergrate different frameworks smoothly), but
requires you to use java where mmbase allows you to use tablib, which is
very user friendly.
Of course we are comparing a a framework with a CMS,
this is an interesting point, but i nearly let it slip...
Wat is the definition of a CMS? that it merely allows you to reach
content and perhaps modify it? but what is the difference between
'content' and 'data' and what happens to the CMS if all kinds of
business rules are added to make sure the right things happen to the
data? is it still a CMS? or has it become an middle tier application
framework? I have seen many mmbase projects that blurry the line as much
as possible, using mmbase as an application framework and find it
wanting. More so, if mmbase were 'just' a CMS would we have all this
discussion about where and how to extend (read: add your own business
rules to) mmbase??
It is an interesting point because the fundamental question about mmbase
2 is: what is mmbase? How dous it relate to all these frameworks that do
a bit of the same?
I think the answers to these questions should be hour guide towards an
mmbase 2.0 design.
Ernst
spring doens't
required anything. it's the MVC pattern that usualy gets implemented
using java code
_______________________________________________
Developers mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.mmbase.org/mailman/listinfo/developers
_______________________________________________
Developers mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.mmbase.org/mailman/listinfo/developers
