Fair enough. That's good to know. On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 1:16 PM, jamesfin <james.alan.finni...@gmail.com>wrote:
> > > Thanks for the honest reply Richard. > > You are very correct in that we are talking about a Flex application here. > However, I also am involved in an equivalent iPhone application and am using > the iPhone port of PureMVC. It was easier to convert the Flex app. to the > already complex iPhone architecture with PureMVC. Since PureMVC is available > for most any environment, it's a safe-bet in the end too cause you never > know when you may need to port your app. > > No harm, no foul. ;) > > > --- In flexcoders@yahoogroups.com <flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com>, Richard > Rodseth <rrods...@...> wrote: > > > > Not to disparage PureMVC (glad it works for you), but I don't really get > the > > significance of the fact that it's not Flex-specific. We're developing > Flex > > apps. > > > > One complaint I have about Mate is that the lack of strong typing in the > > event map can certainly trip you up. > > > > On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 10:31 AM, jamesfin <james.alan.finnigan@ > ...>wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > I have to concur with Chris. I've been using PureMVC and took a stab at > > > Cairngorm and Mate in the beginning but felt they were too tightly > coupled > > > with Flex, especially Mate. I'm not an MVC expert but will say that I > have > > > enjoyed having the strict decoupling which makes managing the code > easier. > > > If you think Cairngorm/Mate decouples things which I know they do well, > give > > > PureMVC a whirl and you will then understand why we are passionate > about > > > PureMVC. We don't mind the additional coding that is required to > implement > > > an application in it as we know that means it is forcing us towards a > well > > > architected application. > > > > > > I want to add a shout-out for Fabrication as well. Fabrication is an > add-on > > > for the Multi-core version of PureMVC that allows components to be able > to > > > send notifications from one MVC in one SWF to another MVC in another > SWF > > > using pipes. All of this is seamless with standard PureMVC > notifications. > > > Nice! > > > > > > Then again, who am I and what do I know. > > > > > > $0.02 > > > > > > > > > --- In flexcoders@yahoogroups.com > > > <flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com><flexcoders% > 40yahoogroups.com>, Chris > > > > <zomgforeelz@> wrote: > > > > > > > > PureMVC is the bomb. > > > > > > > > Yes there is boiler plate code but the things it allows you to do is > > > > very useful. The learning curve is a bit steep if you are not > familiar > > > > with MVC, but it is really, really worth it. > > > > > > > > Cairngorm is pretty good, but I felt that the reusability of the code > > > > wasn't as great as PureMVC. The fact that its language-specific is a > > > > turn-off for me. I like that I can code PureMVC in pure AS3, Flex, C# > > > > or Objective C if necessary. > > > > > > > > > > > > Here is a posting on the PureMVC LinkedIn group I did recently that > > > > may help clarify some points about the benefits of using a framework > > > > in Flex: > > > > > > > > The benefit of using a framework such as PureMVC for us is: > > > > > > > > Consistency - Developing, (and especially developing remotely) you > > > > need to enforce a focused singular vision not only on the project but > > > > also its structure. A framework allows you to do that. > > > > Stability - By using a framework you avoid a lot of the pitfalls of > > > > spaghetti code. One of the unfortunate problems with Flex is that > > > > while its really really easy to get moving, and perfect for rapid > > > > prototyping, often these prototypes aren't thrown away, but instead > > > > built on top of. Things quickly spiral out of control, and you can't > > > > keep the house standing. I speak from personal experience, and also > > > > from the experience of others. > > > > Maintainability - By staying consistent you are able to easily build > > > > features out using the same tried and true tactics. This means that > > > > when developer A leaves and Developer B starts, you teach him the > 'MVC > > > > ropes' and they jump right in. This also means other people's code > and > > > > your code take on a similar feel, meaning you feel right at home in > > > > most of the codebase, including things you didn't write. > > > > Testing - By utilizing a framework we are able to peel off very > > > > specific areas of the application and test just them. For example: > > > > Perhaps you have a 'You have won!' screen at the end of a level. You > > > > could play through a level to see the screen, or you could create a > > > > special demo Mediator that pretends to win the level and immediately > > > > displays the view and just test that. > > > > > > > > * What are the limitations or cons of using a Framework with Flex 3? > > > > > > > > I would say that the most difficult thing is there is a lot of boiler > > > > plate code. Things in PureMVC are very loosely coupled, and the price > > > > of this loose coupling is that you need to add a bit more code. > > > > > > > > * Do I really need to use a Framework, or does Flex 3 have what it > > > > takes out of the box? > > > > > > > > YES you need a framework. Flex out of the box for anything beyond > > > > small applications quickly becomes unmanageable. Even using > frameworks > > > > like Cairngorm can become overwhelmed if you plan to fork code. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 10:42 AM, Richard Rodseth <rrodseth@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Personally, I like Mate and suggest you check it out before > committing > > > to either of those too. > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 8:16 AM, Christophe <christophe_jacquelin@> > > > wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> Hello, > > > > >> > > > > >> Is it easy to learn and use Cairngorm or PureMvc. I have a one > year > > > application and I would like to use these frameworks to structured it. > > > > >> > > > > >> Thank you, > > > > >> Christophe, > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
