after a long hiatus back to talk about frameworks

Hi, its been a while since I did any CF work. I am wondering what framework seems to be popular right now. I did a bit of fusebox and liked it. But am wondering about the others out there. I noticed CF builder 2 didn't have any support for it as did CFEclipse. I find that odd. Has FB gone 'out of fashion' ? I would like something that worked liked objects.. I can't remember if FB did that very well.

Anecdotally:    - http://cfwheels.org    - http://coldbox.org <http://www.coldbox.org/>;    - http://fusebox.org <http://www.fusebox.org/>;    - http://mach-ii.com <http://www.mach-ii.com/>;    - http://fw1.riaforge.org    - http://ontap.riaforge.org    - and others I recommend picking whichever seems to line up best with your way of thinking about things (or the way you'd *like* to think about things) and go with it. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

some resources which may help you getting back into CF www.cf411.com www.cfsearch.com www.cfmldeveloper.com from these you can most likely find everything else you need ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- thanks guys. Wow, some old names I still remember. =)

I'm not afraid to poke the stormcloud :) Fusebox went unsupported for a number of years and there was some drama about who owned the source code (it predates modern open source licenses). There was a failed fork and then the community stepped in and created a barrage of better frameworks. Recently, Fusebox has been open-sourced (on github) and there is a small team of people working on the next version. It may be too little and too late, but still probably a worthy effort. Even still, I would not recommend going that way. Many people believe Framework/1 (fw1.riaforge.org) is the true successor to Fusebox. It implements a couple features the same way, and it was created by the FB 5 and 5.5 primary developer Sean Corfield. Depending on the size of what you plan to build, you may be able to shrink your selection. The more "enterprise" options are probably Mach-II, Model-Glue and ColdBox. They do a lot and have a lot going for them. ColdBox is the younger of the three, and probably best documented, Louis also does great training classes. Model-Glue hasn't seen a lot of action lately. Model-Glue and Mach-II are heavily XML based and (to me) can get overwhelming. The more casual options are probably cfwheels and FW/1, but like John Bliss said, go with whichever works with your way of thinking. (I hope I offended everyone with this ;) nathan strutz [www.dopefly.com] [hi.im/nathanstrutz] [about.me/nathanstrutz] ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

>> Many people believe Framework/1 (fw1.riaforge.org) is the true successor to Fusebox. +1 I ran into this the other day: CFMeetup 2011_0303 "Simple MVC with FW/1", with Daria Norris http://vimeo.com/21864956 That should get you started with FW/1 in (fairly) short order. HTH G! > Many people believe Framework/1 (fw1.riaforge.org) is the true successor > to > Fusebox. It implements a couple features the same way, and it was created > by the FB 5 and 5.5 primary developer Sean Corfield. > -- Gerald Guido http://www.myinternetisbroken.com

But my approach to frameworks has been to 'wait and see'. Because I don't like wasting my time. I need to do something on a daily basis other wise it wont stick. I delayed learning any Framework and then just learned fusebox at a job/contract. I was going to ask, "which frameworks are the most popular" in terms of actual employment statistics but even then, it might all be a waste of time if my next contract doesn't use ( framework x,y, or z ). So I think I'll continue conserving my energy and just focus on CF. Maybe checkout FW/1 for my own projects from what a few here have said about it. didn't find the documention all that great though.

I am still seeing a lot of legacy apps using fusebox, in perm jobs and contracts, so no harm in knowing it. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Frameworks exist because they help solve problems - typically problems that are common and many people have experienced in the past. These problems are not going to go away. Yes, a particular framework X may go away, but learning it will not be a waste of time as you will gain the experience of how it can help you solve those problems. Personally I think you are making a mistake if you just ignore them. To be clear, I'm not saying every project needs a framework. Heck no. You want to ensure you actually have problems before you go trying to solve them. ;) But focusing on 'which framework is more popular' and 'which framework may go away' seems a bit silly. As it stands - the "big boys" in our world have been around for years: Model-Glue, Mach II, ColdBox. Even FW/1 is a bit old now. I don't think you have to worry about them going away anytime soon. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

"But focusing on 'which framework is more popular' and 'which framework may go away' seems a bit silly." I don't think so. The reason being is that I don't like wasting my time because if I don't use a thing everyday it doesn't get imprinted. For example - I've gotten semi proficient in java several times only to have the knowledge dissapear on account of lack of use. Popularity would also be a good indicator of job prospect, which is a good indicator of how much money I can potentially make. Remember this ( for me ) about expending the least amount of energy for maximum results.

My comment still applies. Even if you learn and forget all of those frameworks in succession, because most of them feature MVC/OO/ORM/etc, that stuff should stick. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

>My comment still applies. Even if you learn and forget all of those >frameworks in succession, because most of them feature MVC/OO/ORM/etc, that >stuff should stick. > Yes everyone's comment applies,I was not intending to diminish anyone's perspective. :)

I know. I was proposing a reason why "wasting my time because if I don't use a thing everyday it doesn't get imprinted" might not apply. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

As an example of this, learning MVC and DI in Coldbox made it much easier to dive into .Net MVC when I was working in a .Net/C# shop. There were certainly some differences in how things were done in each framework (Coldbox was better than .Net MVC in pretty much every way, though .Net MVC got much better in later versions) but the concepts were mostly the same. I understood models, controllers, views, helper functions, dependency injection, etc and it became a matter of picking up the particulars of the new framework and the differences in underlying language (CF vs C#).  Definitely helpful to me as a developer. Judah > > My comment still applies. Even if you learn and forget all of those > frameworks in succession, because most of them feature MVC/OO/ORM/etc, that > stuff should stick.

Right...but...learning a new framework or two, depending on which you choose and how you use 'em, will make you a better MVC'er, OO'er, ORM'er, Frameworker, etc... ...if you take my meaning. And most/all of those things are likely to help you land your next job, regardless of which framework(s) they do or do not use. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- Yes, Jon, that's a good point.

>>Frameworks exist because they help solve problems This is why the "best" framework is the one you design yourself to solve your problems. Solutions for other people's problems ar not always good for you and may even cause more problems you will ever encounter.

For certain breeds of unique problem, that's probably true. For most breeds of common problem, let's not spend a week or two developing a custom framework before problem-solving commences. On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 12:00 PM, <> wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

I may just stick with FB for now, I already am comfortable with it. The path of least resistance... Lol

I think much of it  overshadows and diminishes what CFML's biggest advantage has always been, which is simplicity to use and ease to learn, CFML is itself a RAD Framework for JAVA don;t forget. If a newbie comes along here they are invariably told to use OOP, use MVC, use a framework, use cfscript and all the other most complex parts of CF, which rather defeats the point of using CFML doesn't it. The average newbie to CF really only needs to learn a handful of tags and functions to do what he needs on a basic site, even CFC's are not required. The  frameworks, OOP and MVC topic really belongs in the realm of advanced developers who need this stuff and enterprise apps, the newbie and dabbler really shouldn't need to feel pressured into learning this stuff if they don;t need it. On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 6:00 PM, <> wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- Another excellent point. I mean ease of use was one of the reasons I chose and was directed at CF years ago.  Really, I am between contracts right now, I figure to apply some framework on personal projects to keep my skills up to a degree but also to allow for possibility of expansion of those projects onto higher levels in the future.

Russ, did I meet you in the UK a few years ago, you offered me some beer on a job interview? Lol

Lol, quite possibly, waz it an interview at loud n clear, the md always endded up dragging everyone to the pub. Regards Russ Michaels From my mobile On 9 May 2012 18:24, "Don" <danfarmer@hotmail.com> wrote: > > Russ, did I meet you in the UK a few years ago, you offered me some beer > on a job interview? Lol

> I was going to ask, "which frameworks are the most popular" in terms of > actual employment statistics but even then, it might all be a waste of time > if my next contract doesn't use ( framework x,y, or z ). > > Maybe what you are looking for isn't going to be solved by a framework, but by a better methodology. By far, the most popular way to write web applications these days, an improvement over the old Fusebox days, and certainly enabled (and sometimes forced) by all the frameworks, is MVC. The Model-View-Controller pattern is pretty ideal for web applications, and is one of the best tools we developers have these days. You can do it without a framework, it's not hard ( www.dopefly.com/techblog/entry.cfm?entry=307 and www.dopefly.com/techblog/entry.cfm?entry=308), and it's much more important than marrying yourself to any specific framework. nathan strutz [www.dopefly.com] [hi.im/nathanstrutz] [about.me/nathanstrutz] ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- +infinity

----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- Yes thanks Nathan, this has been an excellent addition. I would much rather stick to my own style while integrating a MVC approach... I'm not big on abstraction and would rather keep it as simple as possible.

----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- Hi Nathan, many thanks for your links. I really like how you've broken the whole MVC down into the most basic bite sized chunks.... your approach was very straight forward and easily digestible. IE - you wrote how I think. Well done and thanks again.

Nathan is DA MAN! :-) Sent from my Samsung Galaxy SII On May 9, 2012 9:48 PM, "Don" <danfarmer@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > >Maybe what you are looking for isn't going to be solved by a framework, but ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- and ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- important > >than marrying yourself to any specific framework. > > Hi Nathan, many thanks for your links. I really like how you've broken the whole MVC down into the most basic bite sized chunks.... your approach was very straight forward and easily digestible. IE - you wrote how I think. Well done and thanks again.

Agreed.  I'm porting a number of sites to FW/1 on Railo and I've found the communities and developers for both to be extremely helpful. Also, in my experience FW/1 is much easier to implement than Fusebox. > >>> Many people believe Framework/1 (fw1.riaforge.org) is the true successor> to Fusebox. > > +1

I'd agree that FW/1 is the natural FB successor - and it allows you to break it's mold without killing the whole thing (mostly because it's implemented as a single CFC - quite ingeneous). Mark Kruger - CFG CF Webtools www.cfwebtools.com www.coldfusionmuse.com O: 402.408.3733 x105 E: mkruger@cfwebtools.com Skype: markakruger I'm not afraid to poke the stormcloud :) Fusebox went unsupported for a number of years and there was some drama about who owned the source code (it predates modern open source licenses). There was a failed fork and then the community stepped in and created a barrage of better frameworks. Recently, Fusebox has been open-sourced (on github) and there is a small team of people working on the next version. It may be too little and too late, but still probably a worthy effort. Even still, I would not recommend going that way. Many people believe Framework/1 (fw1.riaforge.org) is the true successor to Fusebox. It implements a couple features the same way, and it was created by the FB 5 and 5.5 primary developer Sean Corfield. Depending on the size of what you plan to build, you may be able to shrink your selection. The more "enterprise" options are probably Mach-II, Model-Glue and ColdBox. They do a lot and have a lot going for them. ColdBox is the younger of the three, and probably best documented, Louis also does great training classes. Model-Glue hasn't seen a lot of action lately. Model-Glue and Mach-II are heavily XML based and (to me) can get overwhelming. The more casual options are probably cfwheels and FW/1, but like John Bliss said, go with whichever works with your way of thinking. (I hope I offended everyone with this ;) nathan strutz [www.dopefly.com] [hi.im/nathanstrutz] [about.me/nathanstrutz] ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

FW/1 is nice.  It has it's nuances but it allows for a very clean implementation as long as you stick to it. -Jake On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 11:38 AM, Mark A. Kruger <mkruger@cfwebtools.com>wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Since we're plugging our favorites, be sure to check out http://cfwheels.org Very sexy.  :-) On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 11:42 AM, Jake Churchill <reynacho@gmail.com> wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

its funny how the simple things tend to stay the same. I created my first framework/methodology more than 10 years ago now back in the days of CF4.5, it was a really simple affair that had a global config file and allowed you to pass ACTIONS on the URL to specify which section (component or controller by today's standards I guess) and method to call. Inside each section (folder) you had a pagemaster.cfm which defined the layout (view) for each section and passed control to sub-sections (e.g. index.cfm?section1.subsection.action). Then along came fusebox which did pretty much the same thing although with a lot more bloat, and fw/1 pretty much works along those lines too. On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 5:50 PM, John M Bliss <bliss.john@gmail.com> wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

FW/1 is pretty awesome, and I like ColdBox as well, both are easy to learn and solve a lot of pretty common issues, On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 1:16 PM, Russ Michaels <russ@michaels.me.uk> wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----