On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 8:18 PM, Steve Onnis 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 simple output sti
with most of those frameworks you can specifiy the folders and re-use
the same folders
for model and views if you want, which is conveniant, but I have to
say following
common conventions for file systems is a really good thing at the same time.
MVC is so much better than MVCX
coldbox allows you
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
litt
ooglegroups.com
Subject: RE: [cfaussie] Frameworks and MVC
Are you aware of FW/1?
http://fw1.riaforge.org/
It is still MVC, but it's a single file. It's just not clear which is the
bigger real
pain for you, MVC or lots of files. :-) With FW/1, the two are no longer
mutually
incl
elying on files being in certain places
> to be able 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] Fra
ps.com [mailto:cfaus...@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
Peter, do we have a timeline for Railo 4?
Mark
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 1:08 PM, Peter Bell 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. I'd do it myself but I ha
Tell me more? Is this like an REPL for cfscript?
On Wed, 02 Jun 2010 13:08:37 +1000, Peter Bell
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. I'd do it myself but
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 p
I was thinking the same thing Charlie. It is MVC, but it doesn't feel
like you're using MVC in some ways.
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.
:-))
On Wed, 02 Jun 2010 12:55:
ilto:cfaus...@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 t
o:* cfaussie@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 control
@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
ad,
>> just that i'm not a fan). I guess im looking for something that is more
>> like a facade than an actual framework
>>
>> --
>> *From:* Mark Mandel [mailto:mark.man...@gmail.com]
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, 2 June 2010 12:12 PM
>>
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 x
om]
> *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&
ark Mandel [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
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 wrote:
> Is there a framework that does not use MVC?
18 matches
Mail list logo
