RE: OT: Mach-II
Just to add one thing, For maintainability I think it is a huge advantage that basically most of the application flow is in one XML file, for the whole application. -- Hugo Ahlenius - Hugo AhleniusE-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project Officer Phone:+46 8 230460 UNEP GRID-ArendalFax:+46 8 230441 Stockholm OfficeMobile:+46 733 467111 WWW: http://www.grida.no - | -Original Message- | From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2004 04:09 | To: CF-Talk | Subject: Re: OT: Mach-II | | - Does your organization use Mach-II? | | Yes, it's become our de facto way of building all CF | applications that are medium-sized and up (or have the | potential to grow to this size).I also do a great deal of | freelance work and use it on most of my freelance CF projects. | | - Care to comment on how your organization has benefited from using | it? | | Flexibility and maintainability are the two greatest benefits | we've seen thus far.I knew we were on the right track when | we built an app in Mach-II and six months later numerous | changes/enhancements were needed.I was amazed at how simply | things were changed and the minimal impact changing one piece | of the application had on other parts. | | I strongly disagree with the notion that Mach-II is bloated. | It's more bloated than not using a framework, sure, but for | all the benefit that it offers Mach-II is extremely efficient | and lighweight.This isn't in the same weight class of | something like Struts at all, but IMO it brings many of | Struts' benefits to CF without a lot of the weight and complexity. | | I also didn't find that the learning curve was that great, | but I must admit I come from a Java background.If you don't | have a fair amount of experience with OO you may find it a | bit challenging at first, and without a decent OO background | you also probably won't gain a lot of the benefits Mach-II | offers.For me it was a natural fit. | | Personally I've inherited a lot of horrendously | poorly-organized applications at my company, and I feel | confident that no one in the future will say the same about | the apps we're writing in Mach-II now.Even if someone | inherits one of these apps and doesn't know Mach-II, at least | they can read a few documents and figure out what's going on | better than a large application written with no framework at | all, or worse yet a framework that someone develops on their | own that is no good, has no documentation, or both. | | Just my thoughts--I've had nothing but fantastic experiences | with Mach-II and will definitely continue to use it. | | - Matt | | [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
Re: [OT] Mach-II
Example: Java is a virtual machine which uses a real machine to emulate another one which does not exists. Any program runs about 10 times slower than the same compiled in C or other. The BIG advantage however is that the program is machine independant and could be easily migrated to UNIX, Windows, LINUX, and probabilly even on a toaster, fine! But how many people are programming in Java and have absolutely NO intention to migrate to a different machine? Weather or not that was the only intention of the original Java design, there are certainly other advantages that people are using it for today. For example The JVM architecture makes it easier to sand box the application from the rest of the machine, as opposed to native code. It's not possible to code buffer overruns, and much harder to code memory leaks then in many of it's predecessors. So I would think that at least some of these people using Java in an environment where they don't need code portability are using it for of these or another good reason, rather than because they are just following the next big thing. -- [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
Re: OT: Mach-II
- Does your organization use Mach-II? No Why? It is too bloated. The learning curve is too great. And our custom framework scales more easily from small projects to Enterprise Projects and can be installed in 3 minutes. I've timed it. :-) - Care to comment on how your organization has benefited from using it? It hasn't. [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
RE: OT: Mach-II
I guess to me, frameworks are like fraternities.I never joined one, and would never.that doesn't mean its bad, doesn't mean its good, just not something I would subscribe to. Ive got a pretty cool way of doing my coding, in what I call TonyBox :) and it works. easy to fix stuff. and works great. bottom line: do what works best for your company, can scale well, and is easily modifiable.Comment your code, and be nice to future developers since you may not be the only person to EVER work on a project :) tw -Original Message- From: Bryan F. Hogan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2004 2:04 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: OT: Mach-II - Does your organization use Mach-II? No Why? It is too bloated. The learning curve is too great. And our custom framework scales more easily from small projects to Enterprise Projects and can be installed in 3 minutes. I've timed it. :-) - Care to comment on how your organization has benefited from using it? It hasn't. [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
Re: OT: Mach-II
Ditto from this Bryan ;-) Bryan Stevenson B.Comm. VP Director of E-Commerce Development Electric Edge Systems Group Inc. t. 250.920.8830 e. [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Macromedia Associate Partner www.macromedia.com - Vancouver Island ColdFusion Users Group Founder Director www.cfug-vancouverisland.com - Original Message - From: Bryan F. Hogan To: CF-Talk Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2004 11:04 AM Subject: Re: OT: Mach-II - Does your organization use Mach-II? No Why? It is too bloated. The learning curve is too great. And our custom framework scales more easily from small projects to Enterprise Projects and can be installed in 3 minutes. I've timed it. :-) - Care to comment on how your organization has benefited from using it? It hasn't. [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
Re: OT: Mach-II
Nothing wrong with your statement, but I keep seeing a lot of not invented here comments... - Original Message - From: Tony Weeg [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2004 2:07 PM Subject: RE: OT: Mach-II I guess to me, frameworks are like fraternities.I never joined one, and would never.that doesn't mean its bad, doesn't mean its good, just not something I would subscribe to. Ive got a pretty cool way of doing my coding, in what I call TonyBox :) and it works. easy to fix stuff. and works great. bottom line: do what works best for your company, can scale well, and is easily modifiable.Comment your code, and be nice to future developers since you may not be the only person to EVER work on a project :) tw -Original Message- From: Bryan F. Hogan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2004 2:04 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: OT: Mach-II - Does your organization use Mach-II? No Why? It is too bloated. The learning curve is too great. And our custom framework scales more easily from small projects to Enterprise Projects and can be installed in 3 minutes. I've timed it. :-) - Care to comment on how your organization has benefited from using it? It hasn't. [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
RE: OT: Mach-II
The original question was does your organisationuse Mach-II? and so far lots of people have said we don't or we made our own but no one's said yes we do. Does anyone actually use it? Has Mach-II really missed the mark then? Cheers Mike Kear Windsor, NSW, Australia AFP Webworks http://afpwebworks.com [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
RE: OT: Mach-II
No, it's there. I've received about a dozen replies off list. It would be nice if people would talk about things publicly. I don't think the fear of other people's comments is really legitimate. But I am grateful to those who replied to me. M Mike Kear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The original question was does your organisationuse Mach-II? and so far lots of people have said we don't or we made our own but no one's said yes we do. Does anyone actually use it? Has Mach-II really missed the mark then? Cheers Mike Kear Windsor, NSW, Australia AFP Webworks http://afpwebworks.com [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
RE: OT: Mach-II
C'mon Mike, let's out 'em!Post their e-mail addy's! -- Marlon Moyer, Sr. Internet Developer American Contractors Insurance Group phone: 972.687.9445 fax: 972.687.0607 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] www.acig.com -Original Message- From: Michael Haggerty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2004 3:36 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: OT: Mach-II No, it's there. I've received about a dozen replies off list. It would be nice if people would talk about things publicly. I don't think the fear of other people's comments is really legitimate. But I am grateful to those who replied to me. M Mike Kear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The original question was does your organisationuse Mach-II? and so far lots of people have said we don't or we made our own but no one's said yes we do. Does anyone actually use it? Has Mach-II really missed the mark then? Cheers Mike Kear Windsor, NSW, Australia AFP Webworks http://afpwebworks.com [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
RE: OT: Mach-II
We currently use Fusebox 3 here and I am considering Fusebox 4.But before I do make that move, I'd like to hear what others that have used it have to say about Mach-II.I am just getting into CFCs, but if the reasons/experiences are compelling enough, I would consider the move directly to Mach-II instead of F4. --Jeff -Original Message- From: Michael Haggerty [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 13:36:27 -0700 (PDT) Subject: RE: OT: Mach-II No, it's there. I've received about a dozen replies off list. It would be nice if people would talk about things publicly. I don't think the fear of other people's comments is really legitimate. But I am grateful to those who replied to me. M Mike Kear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The original question was does your organisationuse Mach-II? and so far lots of people have said we don't or we made our own but no one's said yes we do. Does anyone actually use it? Has Mach-II really missed the mark then? Cheers Mike Kear Windsor, NSW, Australia AFP Webworks http://afpwebworks.com [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
Re: OT: Mach-II
No, it's there. I've received about a dozen replies off list. It would be useful if you can summarize that with the rest of the llist. No need to report names, just share whatever you think it may be useful to others as well. Thanks. Massimo Foti http://www.massimocorner.com [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
Re: OT: Mach-II
What I have heard is mostly positive. There is a lot of disagreement as to it's scalability compared to fusebox, and some people think it is overkill for smaller projects. But there is some consenus about the following: - Mach II apps are maintainable over time - the MVC design pattern is the toughest part for people to grasp - there are benefits to being able to use pre-built components under Mach-II M Massimo, Tiziana e Federica [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No, it's there. I've received about a dozen replies off list. It would be useful if you can summarize that with the rest of the llist. No need to report names, just share whatever you think it may be useful to others as well. Thanks. Massimo Foti http://www.massimocorner.com - [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
Re: OT: Mach-II
I am currently developing using fb3 at work.I picked up FB4 in a couple of hours and immediately applied to my other projects with no problem.If you have been using fb3, then picking up fb4 is easy.For MachII, it's not so easy.I have been playing around with it for a couple of days, and I still don't fully understand how to harness the farmwork's full capabilities. And there are issues like global includes and XFAs I still don't know where they fit in with MachII. Nick Han [EMAIL PROTECTED] 05/26/04 10:48AM Last summer, there was a lot of optimism on this list surrounding the release of Mach-II and it's object oriented approach to ColdFusion. Having tried it on a few projects and decided Fusebox was better suited for what I was doing, I am now considering it for a larger project my team is about to commence (approx. 9,500 man hours over a 7 month period). One of my main concerns is having to train people to work within this framework, I remain one of three or four people in my organization who have actually heard of Mach-II. There is some resistance based on people's unfamiliarity with it and the perception other frameworks are more widely used. This got me to wondering about how much Mach-II is actually being used, so I am conducting one of those unscientific polls about technology usage: - Does your organization use Mach-II? - Care to comment on how your organization has benefited from using it? M [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
Re: OT: Mach-II
I'll throw in another advantage of Mach-II. It greatly facilitates the integration of Java and CFML by clearly partitioning the MVC layers, making the division of labor obvious. My criteria for determining when to use Mach-II is the complexity of the business model. If the complexity is such that I want to model it in Java, I'll use Mach-II. Otherwise, I'll keep everything in CFMX and use a (simpler) home-grown framework. Dave Jones NetEffect At 02:20 PM 5/26/04 -0700, you wrote: What I have heard is mostly positive. There is a lot of disagreement as to it's scalability compared to fusebox, and some people think it is overkill for smaller projects. But there is some consenus about the following: - Mach II apps are maintainable over time - the MVC design pattern is the toughest part for people to grasp - there are benefits to being able to use pre-built components under Mach-II M Massimo, Tiziana e Federica [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No, it's there. I've received about a dozen replies off list. It would be useful if you can summarize that with the rest of the llist. No need to report names, just share whatever you think it may be useful to others as well. Thanks. Massimo Foti http://www.massimocorner.com - -- [http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=t:4Todays Threads] [http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:164572This Message] [http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4Subscription] [http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=1210.1130.4Fast Unsubscribe] [http://www.houseoffusion.com/signin/User Settings] -- [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
RE: OT: Mach-II
The state of the business model is irrelevent in picking Mach-II, since Mach-II is exclusively for the presentation/controller.If you build it right, you can scrap all your Mach-II code and replace it with FB or the other way around, or any other pair of frameworks, and the model needn't change a lick. I was originally really gung-ho about Mach-II, but my excitement died out when I realized I could get almost exactly the same functionality with FuseBox, without the complexity.Each public fuseaction is almost exactly like an event handler, the listeners are almost identical, just don't extend MachII.Listener, and everything from the services layer down is identical. The way variables are passed around is different (no event object in FB4), you're missing explicit filters (though you can synthesize them very easily), and you can't fire additional events into a queue within the request, but I found that I generally prefered fireing them as a separate request (with location()) rather than same request (to get out of the 'refresh-the-form-submit' issue, for example). Cheers, barneyb -Original Message- From: Dave Jones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2004 3:24 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: OT: Mach-II I'll throw in another advantage of Mach-II. It greatly facilitates the integration of Java and CFML by clearly partitioning the MVC layers, making the division of labor obvious. My criteria for determining when to use Mach-II is the complexity of the business model. If the complexity is such that I want to model it in Java, I'll use Mach-II. Otherwise, I'll keep everything in CFMX and use a (simpler) home-grown framework. Dave Jones NetEffect [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
RE: OT: Mach-II
...since Mach-II is exclusively for the presentation/controller. Really? I thought Mach-II was an MVC framework, not a VC framework. If you build it right, you can scrap all your Mach-II code and replace it with FB or the other way around, or any other pair of frameworks, and the model needn't change a lick. Well, I think that's one of the benefits of a MVC architecture, i.e. the ability to isolate the layers and swap out as needed. I was originally really gung-ho about Mach-II, but my excitement died out when I realized I could get almost exactly the same functionality with FuseBox, without the complexity. Each to his own. I looked at FB3, didn't like it and never looked at FB4. Mach-II is not perfect, but I think it's a nice cut at designing a MVC-OO framework for CF development. Dave Jones NetEffect [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
RE: OT: Mach-II
...since Mach-II is exclusively for the presentation/controller. Really? I thought Mach-II was an MVC framework, not a VC framework. To clarify my point, Mach-II provides a mechanism to abstract the model components out from the controller and presentation components.However, it doesn't provide anything to help you build your model. In that sense, FB is actually more advanced, since you can use the same circuit/fuseaction/fuse breakdown to help organize you model.However, doing that binds your model to the framework, which isn't good, IMHO.I'd personally recommend using a model build with CFCs behind your app - exactly the same model as behind the listeners in a Mach-II app.And when I say exactly I mean exactly, line-for-line identical. Cheers, barneyb -Original Message- From: Dave Jones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2004 5:12 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: OT: Mach-II ...since Mach-II is exclusively for the presentation/controller. Really? I thought Mach-II was an MVC framework, not a VC framework. If you build it right, you can scrap all your Mach-II code and replace it with FB or the other way around, or any other pair of frameworks, and the model needn't change a lick. Well, I think that's one of the benefits of a MVC architecture, i.e. the ability to isolate the layers and swap out as needed. I was originally really gung-ho about Mach-II, but my excitement died out when I realized I could get almost exactly the same functionality with FuseBox, without the complexity. Each to his own. I looked at FB3, didn't like it and never looked at FB4. Mach-II is not perfect, but I think it's a nice cut at designing a MVC-OO framework for CF development. Dave Jones NetEffect [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
RE: OT: Mach-II
However, doing that binds your model to the framework, which isn't good, IMHO. Agreed, and in fact I implement a light (perhaps heretical) version of Mach-II, to keep my application as independent of the framework as possible. I'd personally recommend using a model build with CFCs behind your app - exactly the same model as behind the listeners in a Mach-II app.And when I say exactly I mean exactly, line-for-line identical. Agreed again. When done right this is how it should work. And for that matter, it shouldn't matter whether the model is implemented in Java or CFCs. Dave Jones NetEffect Cheers, barneyb -Original Message- From: Dave Jones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2004 5:12 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: OT: Mach-II ...since Mach-II is exclusively for the presentation/controller. Really? I thought Mach-II was an MVC framework, not a VC framework. If you build it right, you can scrap all your Mach-II code and replace it with FB or the other way around, or any other pair of frameworks, and the model needn't change a lick. Well, I think that's one of the benefits of a MVC architecture, i.e. the ability to isolate the layers and swap out as needed. I was originally really gung-ho about Mach-II, but my excitement died out when I realized I could get almost exactly the same functionality with FuseBox, without the complexity. Each to his own. I looked at FB3, didn't like it and never looked at FB4. Mach-II is not perfect, but I think it's a nice cut at designing a MVC-OO framework for CF development. Dave Jones NetEffect -- [http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=t:4Todays Threads] [http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:164585This Message] [http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4Subscription] [http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=1210.1130.4Fast Unsubscribe] [http://www.houseoffusion.com/signin/User Settings] -- [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
Re: OT: Mach-II
- Does your organization use Mach-II? Yes, it's become our de facto way of building all CF applications that are medium-sized and up (or have the potential to grow to this size).I also do a great deal of freelance work and use it on most of my freelance CF projects. - Care to comment on how your organization has benefited from using it? Flexibility and maintainability are the two greatest benefits we've seen thus far.I knew we were on the right track when we built an app in Mach-II and six months later numerous changes/enhancements were needed.I was amazed at how simply things were changed and the minimal impact changing one piece of the application had on other parts. I strongly disagree with the notion that Mach-II is bloated.It's more bloated than not using a framework, sure, but for all the benefit that it offers Mach-II is extremely efficient and lighweight.This isn't in the same weight class of something like Struts at all, but IMO it brings many of Struts' benefits to CF without a lot of the weight and complexity. I also didn't find that the learning curve was that great, but I must admit I come from a Java background.If you don't have a fair amount of experience with OO you may find it a bit challenging at first, and without a decent OO background you also probably won't gain a lot of the benefits Mach-II offers.For me it was a natural fit. Personally I've inherited a lot of horrendously poorly-organized applications at my company, and I feel confident that no one in the future will say the same about the apps we're writing in Mach-II now.Even if someone inherits one of these apps and doesn't know Mach-II, at least they can read a few documents and figure out what's going on better than a large application written with no framework at all, or worse yet a framework that someone develops on their own that is no good, has no documentation, or both. Just my thoughts--I've had nothing but fantastic experiences with Mach-II and will definitely continue to use it. - Matt [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
