Also consider config beans. I¹ve found them to give me the balance of error checking and control that I wanted together with a terser syntax than provided by XML. Just another alternative . . .
Best Wishes, Peter > > On 3/24/07, Thomas Messier < [EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: >> I'm building an MVC framework and I'm making sure XML is NOT a part of it. I >> don't think there's anything wrong with using XML or not, I think you can >> build something well with or without it, it's down to preference. RoR doesn't >> use it and that's one of the reasons I love it. If I put in static >> configuration files, I'd probably use JSON before I used XML. >> >> -TM >> >> >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >> Behalf Of Todd Cullen >> Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2007 11:18 AM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: [Reactor for CF] XML Configuration Files >> >> Quick Question (or maybe not that quick): Why do most of the ColdFusion >> frameworks around use XML configuration files rather than providing methods >> to build the required data structure in ColdFusion? Something in line with >> what RoR does. >> >> Have programmers, more experienced that I, found XML configs are more >> flexible in the long run? Or perhaps they're just easier to setup at the >> beginning? >> >> I'm building an MVC framework and I've been trying to avoid the "XML situps" >> at all cost. Any thoughts would be much appreciated. >> >> Sorry for the off topic post but most of the active contributors on this >> listserv are very insightful. Thanks in advance. -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Reactor for ColdFusion Mailing List [email protected] Archives at: http://www.mail-archive.com/reactor%40doughughes.net/ -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
