That and pizza!
We need sponsors!
Actually, it's a fact that we have higher attendance when we announce
food will be served (not counting Ben Forta meetings which always
brings the biggest numbers).
Joe Kelly
On 5/11/07, Eric Knipp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This is an interesting subject and one that comes up a lot. I have been a
member of the CFUG or 3 or 4 years now, and I think I've attended 3 sessions
that included "intro to Mach-II". To be honest I have a hard time making
time for meetings these days as it is, so when a subject like that comes up,
I write the meeting off, since its stuff I already know. It would be nice
if we could roll both a basic and advanced Mach-II session into a single
meeting.
Dave, with Mach-II 1.5 coming out, it might make sense to do something like
this for that session? Start with an Intro to Mach-II for about 45 minutes
to an hour, then have a second presenter talk about the new advanced stuff
in 1.5? Might be enough incentive to attract both the newbies and the old
battle axes.
eric
On 5/11/07, Christopher Jordan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Dave,
>
> I know that several months ago - maybe even last year - the group had
several presentations on Mach-II. I would really like to learn to use a
framework, but doing so on my own I think may be more of a challenge than I
have energy for right now. Would you (or whoever) mind doing an intro to
Mach-II session sometime?
>
> Thanks,
> Chris
>
> Dave Shuck wrote:
>
> Ron, I was having this discussion the other day with a few developers
while at cf.Objective(). It has been interesting to watch the past few
years. At CFUnited 05, to me it felt like frameworks were still mostly done
by the advanced guys, but probably over half of the attendees at least
understood that they should probably better understand what was going on in
that area. I am over simplifying a bit, but last year it felt more like
everyone seemed to understand the value of them even if they didn't use
them. At cf.Objective() people look at you funny if you don't use them
(unless you are Simon Horwith, then people just look at you funny anyway).
Of course that is a more advanced group, but it is also the group that is
leading many of the tends and helping determine a lot of the "best
practices" which trickle throughout the community.
>
> There are certainly a lot of cases where frameworks are not necessary,
such as a small 3-4 page app. However, I always use Mach-II anyway for the
most part. My reasons are:
> a) I like the compartmentalization that it offers. Yes, I can build that
compartmentalization on my own, but why?
> b) Applications don't ever get smaller. Most applications that I have
worked on evolve or die. It is always a much more pleasant experience to go
back into an app that is well designed in a framework and add existing
funcionality.
> c) Standardization. This has really come to light as I have worked
closely with Aaron over the past couple of years on projects. When you use
a framework, you don't have to guess where to look for things. You
instinctively know. Whether you work by yourself, or whether you work as a
team, standards make things much more efficient in my opinion.
> d) Flexability. I can't stress enough how the concepts of event-driven
application models with filters, plugins, etc make changes easy. Things
that used to take weeks for us to implement in poorly architected legacy
applications can be implemented in hours. Yes of course you can create good
architecture on your own, but frameworks like Mach-II make it an obvious
direction to go.
> e) I am on Team Mach-II now. They make me say this stuff.
>
> ~Dave
>
>
> On 5/11/07, Ron Mast <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi All,
> >
> >
> >
> > What determines if an application needs to be programmed using a
framework?
> >
> >
> >
> > Is it true that we are past the spaghetti code era when programming in
basic coldfusion?
> >
> >
> >
> > I need to get this straight in my head, I'm confused at the moment.
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks in advance!
> >
> >
> >
> > Ron Mast
> >
> > Truth Hardware
> >
> > Webmaster
> >
> > 507-444-4693
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Reply to DFWCFUG:
> > [email protected]
> > Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> > http://lists1.safesecureweb.com/mailman/listinfo/list
> > List Archives:
> >
http://www.mail-archive.com/list%40list.dfwcfug.org/
> > http://www.mail-archive.com/list%40dfwcfug.org/
> > DFWCFUG Sponsors:
> > www.instantspot.com/
> > www.teksystems.com/
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> ~Dave Shuck
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://daveshuck.instantspot.com
________________________________
> _______________________________________________
> Reply to DFWCFUG:
> [email protected]
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists1.safesecureweb.com/mailman/listinfo/list
> List Archives:
> http://www.mail-archive.com/list%40list.dfwcfug.org/
> http://www.mail-archive.com/list%40dfwcfug.org/
> DFWCFUG Sponsors:
> www.instantspot.com/
> www.teksystems.com/
>
>
> --
> http://www.cjordan.us
>
> _______________________________________________
> Reply to DFWCFUG:
> [email protected]
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists1.safesecureweb.com/mailman/listinfo/list
> List Archives:
> http://www.mail-archive.com/list%40list.dfwcfug.org/
> http://www.mail-archive.com/list%40dfwcfug.org/
> DFWCFUG Sponsors:
> www.instantspot.com/
> www.teksystems.com/
>
>
_______________________________________________
Reply to DFWCFUG:
[email protected]
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists1.safesecureweb.com/mailman/listinfo/list
List Archives:
http://www.mail-archive.com/list%40list.dfwcfug.org/
http://www.mail-archive.com/list%40dfwcfug.org/
DFWCFUG Sponsors:
www.instantspot.com/
www.teksystems.com/
_______________________________________________
Reply to DFWCFUG:
[email protected]
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists1.safesecureweb.com/mailman/listinfo/list
List Archives:
http://www.mail-archive.com/list%40list.dfwcfug.org/
http://www.mail-archive.com/list%40dfwcfug.org/
DFWCFUG Sponsors:
www.instantspot.com/
www.teksystems.com/
