No, I have not checked out MG:G. I've created and currently maintaining an MG:U app.
Thanks everyone for your input! :) Henry On Sep 26, 7:28 am, Jared Rypka-Hauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I've never used OnTap... I've looked at it, but it really did nothing > for me. Isaac is a decent guy, but I'm just not into his framework. > > Fusebox is way more verbose than MG (or way less, depends on which > variant you use and how you use it), Mach-II is roughlyish the same > or more XML too. > > ColdBox has a little bit of XML but requires that you have either > advanced knowledge or a fixed directory structure. > > Personally, I think you need to just go download, map, and use some > of the others yourself, just for the experience if nothing else. > > J > > PS - I sort of agree with Dan... at some point, if you're going to > reuse functionality, you need to reiterate at least a descriptor of > the functionality you wish to reuse. OTOH having to repeat a result > take to fire off your layout fuse in nearly every event in the > application... is redundant. But some of this has been addressed in > MG:G. Have you checked out MG:G, Henry? > > On Sep 26, 2008, at 8:14 AM, Dan Wilson wrote: > > > > > Henry, you are contradicting yourself my friend: > > > I started doing CF with MG and I have no experience with the other MVC > > frameworks. However, I can't believe MG xml seems like almost the > > Most verbose out of all the frameworks. > > > Since you have no experience with any other MVC framework, of > > course MG seems the most verbose. If you were a "The Glass Is Half > > Full" kinda guy, you could also say that in your experience, MG is > > the LEAST verbose. > > > The question you should ask yourself is, is it better to declare > > certain functionality in XML or reimplement processes in CFML? > > > DW > > > On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 6:36 PM, henry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I know the Galleon Forum Ports Comparisons has been posted for a while > > now,http://on.tapogee.com/galleonproject/comparison.html, but I just > > happen to read it today. > > > I started doing CF with MG and I have no experience with the other MVC > > frameworks. However, I can't believe MG xml seems like almost the > > Most verbose out of all the frameworks. > > > What do you guys think of onTap as a framework from a MG user pov? > > > Henry Ho > >http://henrylearnstorock.blogspot.com/- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "model-glue" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/model-glue?hl=en For more about Model-Glue, check http://www.model-glue.com . -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
