On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 8:18 PM, Steve Onnis st...@cfcentral.com.au wrote:
we had a demo of FW/1 at our CFUG last week and even though yes it is
stripped down regarding the framework itself, you still had the folder
structure as in
root
- views
- controller
and so on, and just to get a
Is there a framework that does not use MVC? I am open to the thought of
utilising a framework though i hate the idea of the MVC model. Personally i
just think there are too many files to work with. I don't want this to turn
into a frameworks fight, just asking the question on what's available.
I'm not 100% sure how a web app could be anything other than some form of
MVC, even one without a framework.
When you say 'MVC', what do you mean?
Trying to work out what you want to avoid.
Mark
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 12:09 PM, Steve Onnis st...@cfcentral.com.au wrote:
Is there a framework
[mailto:mark.man...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, 2 June 2010 12:12 PM
To: cfaussie@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [cfaussie] Frameworks and MVC
I'm not 100% sure how a web app could be anything other than some form of
MVC, even one without a framework.
When you say 'MVC', what do you mean?
Trying to work
Actually, Fusebox can be used non-mvc and my old, earlier Fusebox versions
code is all non-mvc.
(I understand Mark's point, ie, request/response basically means that there
is an implied controller, model and view, even if this isn't formalised.)
Given that the latest Fusebox can be used without
@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [cfaussie] Frameworks and MVC
Actually, Fusebox can be used non-mvc and my old, earlier Fusebox versions
code is all non-mvc.
(I understand Mark's point, ie, request/response basically means that there
is an implied controller, model and view, even if this isn't formalised
: [cfaussie] Frameworks and MVC
Actually, Fusebox can be used non-mvc and my old, earlier Fusebox versions
code is all non-mvc.
(I understand Mark's point, ie, request/response basically means that there
is an implied controller, model and view, even if this isn't formalised.)
Given
...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of
Steve
Onnis
Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2010 10:39 PM
To: cfaussie@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: [cfaussie] Frameworks and MVC
Conceptually i agree though i just dont want to use the folder structure that
all of
the MVC frameworks tend to use. I like the idea
On Jun 1, 2010, at Tue Jun 1, 10:58 PM, Andrew Myers wrote:
It is extremely nice. Someone now just needs to write some rails style
command line scripts for it. I'd do it myself but I have no idea how to.
:-))
Well, when Railo 4 comes out with command line integration it should be
Tell me more? Is this like an REPL for cfscript?
On Wed, 02 Jun 2010 13:08:37 +1000, Peter Bell pb...@systemsforge.com
wrote:
On Jun 1, 2010, at Tue Jun 1, 10:58 PM, Andrew Myers wrote:
It is extremely nice. Someone now just needs to write some rails style
command line scripts for it.
...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf
Of Steve Onnis
Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2010 10:39 PM
To: cfaussie@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: [cfaussie] Frameworks and MVC
Conceptually i agree though i just dont want to use the folder structure
that all of the MVC frameworks tend to use. I like the idea
to call them
--
*From:* charlie arehart [mailto:charlie_li...@carehart.org]
*Sent:* Wednesday, 2 June 2010 12:56 PM
*To:* cfaussie@googlegroups.com
*Subject:* RE: [cfaussie] Frameworks and MVC
Are you aware of FW/1?
http://fw1.riaforge.org/
It is still MVC
Steve,
You will find that the folders (Conventions) are a pain when you first try
to get into MVC, but the best thing that an MVC framework offers is
separation of the logic, views etc. It means you can switch the entire
business logic out and provide a more robust API in Java, and have to do
13 matches
Mail list logo
