On 3/24/07, Todd Cullen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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.

The main reason for using XML is that it's very easy to manipulate
programmatically which makes it very amenable to driving a framework
and/or building tools around a particular XML specification. XML
provides a fairly rich language for specifying the structure and/or
behavior of your application.

Rails goes to the opposite extreme in relying on convention and, if
you need to break with that convention, you have to start writing a
lot more code to tell Rails how you want to do things. If you've ever
seen a Rails app that has to deal with a legacy database with funky
column names, you will have seen just how ugly this can get.

For comparison, Fusebox 4.x and 5.x are driven entirely by XML but
Fusebox 6 will introduce a set of conventions that will allow you to
omit some, most or even all of the XML depending on how closely you
choose to follow those conventions.

Reactor already takes that approach to some extent: if you work with
default table names and column names, the only thing you have to tell
Reactor about is the relationships (something it cannot reliably
deduce for all databases). Compare that with Transfer which does no
introspection and requires that you specify all the table names and
column names through XML. Of course Transfer has pros as well as cons
when compared to Reactor so you can't just focus on that one point!
--
Sean A Corfield -- (904) 302-SEAN
An Architect's View -- http://corfield.org/

"If you're not annoying somebody, you're not really alive."
-- Margaret Atwood


-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Reactor for ColdFusion Mailing List
[email protected]
Archives at: http://www.mail-archive.com/reactor%40doughughes.net/
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Reply via email to