> the 1 to 1 event-command-delegate methodology I've heard that mentioned indirectly a couple of times before but don't remember ever reading it as a suggested methodology. Maybe I just missed that instruction but I don't follow that practice. I have one delegate per Web Service, so several Commands end up using the same Delegate.
As a general practice, I think Commands are very often an appropriate and efficient approach. I haven't looked into PureMVC yet but would like to at some point. That being said, I've also not really encountered any situations where I felt Cairngorm was restricting me from accomplishing anything. Ben --- In [email protected], Bjorn Schultheiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hey All, > > I don't know if there has been a previous thread on this. I'm > assuming there is but i thought i'd start one again in light of some > recent blog posts about a Silvafug meeting by the assertTrue guys on > frameworks. > > http://www.asserttrue.com/articles/2007/10/17/silvafug-application- > frameworks-presentation > http://probertson.com/articles/2007/10/18/flex-application-frameworks- > presentations/ > http://www.sephiroth.it/weblog/archives/2007/10/flex_frameworks.php > > I haven't used PureMVC yet but I have used Cairngorm for a while > (since the flash 7 days). > > I will say I've got a few beefs with Cairngorm and from just looking > at the PureMVC diagram i already see a few solutions. > > I guess my main beefs with cairngorm has been the use of commands. > Specifically in creating Re-usable commands. > the 1 to 1 event-command-delegate methodology has never sat well with > me. > > Dumb Models (vo collections) is another. > > Support for unit testing in the View is another. > > > Anyone care to help start a discussion? > > > regards, > > Bjorn >
