As one of "those" people that does not use frameworks what is the best framework to start working with and possibly porting all of my old non-framework apps to? Also, are there any good tutorials on how to begin using these frameworks rather than straight procedural code?
Thank you,
Scott A. Dyer
www.econ.ucdavis.edu
Department of Economics
University of California, Davis
Comments
Pretty much every framework is going to require you to write CFCs to encapsulate your application logic so that might be a big consideration for you, depending on your comfort level with OO.
About the only two frameworks that do not require you to write CFCs are Fusebox and onTap.
However, if you're comfortable with CFCs and want something really simple to get you started with frameworks, I would suggest you look at FW/1 (Framework One) http://fw1.riaforge.org - disclaimer: I wrote this framework as a response to the bloat and complexity of the other frameworks out there. It's got quite an active community (and I'm not the only author on the project now) and several live production sites are running FW/1.
Others to look at if you don't mind something much more complex:
- ColdBox - if you prefer convention over configuration (and dislike XML)
- Mach-II - very OO focused, XML configuration
- Model-Glue - more approachable, XML configuration
Oh, another lightweight framework that you might look at is LightFront from Brian Meloche. It's very similar to FW/1 but lets you use Fusebox-style "switch"-based controllers instead of CFCs so if you're more of a procedural kinda person, that might work for you.Reply to this Comment
I'm running a CMS written pre-framworks. Ok, Fusebox was around, but I think that was it. I've hesitated to move to ModelGlue or ColdBox and having to rewrite my entire application.
With the release of FW1 and LightFront, I'm revisiting the idea of moving to a framework. One I can ease my old non-framework code into.
Sean is presenting Feb 2010 on FW1 (Framework One). I'll post the details soon. This might be what you are looking for.
Reply to this Comment