On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 7:09 AM, Alex Skinner <[email protected]> wrote:
> I'm not quite on the same page that CFML is the framework, to me its a > layer on top of the app server with functions and tags but its > applicationness is a bit limited other than whats now provided by > Application.cfc. > CFML has always lived in a bit of a weird middle ground between language, framework, and application server so it's understandable there's differing opinions as to what level of framework is needed in the CFML world. In my opinion if nothing else frameworks provide a standard way to organize applications, and that's enough of a benefit for me to use one (Mach-II). I can't even begin to tell you what a benefit it's been even on a relatively small team to have everyone writing applications in a standard way, so developers can jump from one application to another and know exactly where things are and how everything works. There are common constructs in web applications that if you don't use a common framework you end up rolling your own anyway and having to tell everyone who's going to work on your applications how you did things, and to me the benefit a common framework provides is that you don't have to reinvent that wheel (to pick up on the earlier pun), not to mention you can hire people who already know how you do things if they've used the framework before. So while I'm not 100% on the side of "you have to use a framework" since I agree that to a certain extent CFML is a framework in and of itself and you can certainly roll your own common application structure, I do think there are some very valid reasons to choose to use one as well. -- Matthew Woodward [email protected] http://blog.mattwoodward.com identi.ca / Twitter: @mpwoodward Please do not send me proprietary file formats such as Word, PowerPoint, etc. as attachments. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html -- online documentation: http://openbd.org/manual/ http://groups.google.com/group/openbd?hl=en
