The age old Question Which framework

cfwheels would probably have the lowest learning curve for your team, whereas coldbox will be a bit of a monster but is better for large projects and teams and has a ton of cool built in features such as stats and debugging consoles and ready to go admin ui as well a sthe best documentation there is. fw/1 is really intended for small projects, but I guess there is no reason not to use it for big ones if you don't want all the baggage that comes with the other frameworks, however is it very lacking in documentation and it is very much a figure it out yourself option. On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 12:53 PM, Sandra Clark <sclarklists@gmail.com>wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

We've recently built a large web app that handles bookings for a number of restaurants, including consuming and publishing web services to talk to a third party epos system. We used FW/1, Coldspring and Taffy to handle this, and it's worked brilliantly well. It's running on cf9 rather than cf10 though, but not sure if that would make much difference. Will On 24 July 2012 12:53, Sandra Clark <sclarklists@gmail.com> wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

+1 for FW/1 That is all I am using these days, and I am moving all my sites to it. > We used FW/1, Coldspring and Taffy to handle this,

I think FW/1 is great for a barebones framework where you don't want it getting in your way. I think the documentation and examples are excellent. As I understand it, the next version will be packaged with DI/1 ( dependency Injection) and with routing you can sort of do ReST stuff (though I don't think it is as good as Taffy). cfWheels has a plugin architecture that has a lot of stuff that can help you build a site very quickly. It has it's own ORM. It has very good documentation. Both have very friendly and helpful community. If you build your application with services/domain model, you can pretty much use and MVC framework and without too much effort port to the other. Also, if you want to take advantage of ReSt built into ACF10, you will be able to use your service layer. On 24 July 2012 19:53, Sandra Clark <sclarklists@gmail.com> wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

I guess the fw/1 docs must have improved since i last looked at it then, good to hear. Regards Russ Michaels On Jul 24, 2012 1:24 PM, "AJ Mercer" <ajmercer@gmail.com> wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

I'll ditto the FW/1 recommendation, but I'm curious about why XML makes Model-Glue not an option? The powers that be don't like XML? > > So I'm on a new contract and part of the contract requirements is converting > an old fusebox (procedural) app to a newer framework.  I've mostly been > doing Model-Glue in past few years, but because of the XML setup, it doesn't > seem to be an option here.

Pretty much.  To them, XML equals a fusebox like approach and they want to get away from FB.  Which is a shame, cause I'm very comfortable with MG I'll ditto the FW/1 recommendation, but I'm curious about why XML makes Model-Glue not an option? The powers that be don't like XML? > > So I'm on a new contract and part of the contract requirements is > converting an old fusebox (procedural) app to a newer framework.  I've > mostly been doing Model-Glue in past few years, but because of the XML > setup, it doesn't seem to be an option here. >

Interesting. Thanks for satisfying my curiosity there. :) ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

> Pretty much.  To them, XML equals a fusebox like approach and they want to > get away from FB.  Which is a shame, cause I'm very comfortable with MG If I were to read between the lines here I'd say this usually translates to a team that wanted to break the rules of FB and wanted to put things int he XML file that don't belong there. Logic where it doesn't belong, etc. I only point it out because this is a problem the team probably isn't going to get over just by switching frameworks. I tend to favor FW/1 on projects right now. It has a great simplicity in it's implementation but has very powerful features you can pull out when needed. I think that as a former Fuseboxer, you will also draw a lot of intuitive parallels between Fusebox's terminology and architecture and FW/1's. Subsystems are similar to Circuits, etc... FW/1 is absolutely well suited for a larger enterprise application and is fairly well documented in a minimalistic, non hand-holding way. Meaning, you may still need to drag some other developers along with you on terminology if they don't know OO already - but I think you are expecting that already. Look at the other frameworks you mentioned, but make sure you definitely fully evaluate FW/1 before making your decision. As a bonus - check out DI/1 too. -Cameron -- Cameron Childress -- p:   678.637.5072 im: cameroncf facebook <http://www.facebook.com/cameroncf>; | twitter<http://twitter.com/cameronc>; | google+ <https://profiles.google.com/u/0/117829379451708140985>;