Andrew, It's worth noting that some of the OO styled frameworks don't require OO. For example, my LightFront, which never really took off (I blame myself - too overextended these days - and the very similar FW/1 that DID take off in a big way) can accept Fusebox 3 style switch files, but it'll work whether you are OO, Fusebox legacy or non-OO. That said, I'm not really supporting LightFront at this point, since it never took off and a few projects where I would have used LightFront got shelved, so I never got to refine it beyond its last release.
If anyone cares, http://lightfront.riaforge.org/ Sincerely, Brian Meloche On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 10:35 AM, Andrew Penhorwood <[email protected]>wrote: > Have you looked at the list here http://carehart.org/cf411/#cffw > > There are some frameworks that most have never heard of before. I see it > has two major camps OO styled frameworks and everything else. While the OO > styled frameworks seem to get all of the attention I think they bring more > complexity to CF then is needed. But then I am bias because I wrote a > non-OO framework that I am going to release to open source sometime soon. > > Andrew Penhorwood > > -- > online documentation: http://openbd.org/manual/ > google+ hints/tips: https://plus.google.com/115990347459711259462 > http://groups.google.com/group/openbd?hl=en > > Join us @ http://www.OpenCFsummit.org/ Dallas, Feb 2012 > -- online documentation: http://openbd.org/manual/ google+ hints/tips: https://plus.google.com/115990347459711259462 http://groups.google.com/group/openbd?hl=en Join us @ http://www.OpenCFsummit.org/ Dallas, Feb 2012
