Interview for Frameworks: Mach II or Fusebox 4.1?
      "Frameworks: Mach II or Fusebox 4.1?" interview with Sean Corfield

Michael Smith: This time we are talking with Sean Corfield about his CFUNITED-05 
talk "Frameworks: Mach II or Fusebox 4.1?". So why should a developer come to 
your session Sean ?

Sean Corfield: With all the hype and confusion surrounding application 
frameworks, a lot of developers just don't know which way to go and often don't 
have the time to fully evaluate the different frameworks themselves. Sometimes 
they just pick one and "make do", even if it isn't particularly suitable for 
their work. My session is a fast track to understanding enough about the two 
most popular frameworks so that developers can make an informed choice about 
which of these two is most appropriate for them.

MS: So what exactly is a framework and why would a developer want to use one?

SC: An application framework is pre-built code that you can use as the basis for 
building your own applications. Frameworks provide a common structure for your 
applications and implement a lot of the low-level 'plumbing' that all 
applications have. This lets developers focus on the unique business and 
presentation aspects of their application instead of having to waste time 
implementing the same old infrastructure over and over again. That common 
structure also makes maintenance easier because applications have a similar 
structure - a developer who is familiar with a given framework can dive into any 
application built with that framework and know how things will be structured 
right away.

MS: Is there any downside to using a framework?

SC: A framework imposes a particular architecture and way of working on 
developers. Some developers don't like to be constrained in that manner but I 
think it's good discipline.

MS: So what do you like about Fusebox 4.1?

SC: Fusebox overall provides a lot of flexibility, allowing developers to write 
in a style that they feel comfortable with. Fusebox 4.1 provides support for 
directly manipulating objects - ColdFusion Components, Java objects, COM objects 
and Web Services - so it is completely realistic to write Fusebox applications 
that have a fully object-oriented business model behind them.

MS: And dislike?

SC: Well, it's still possible to write spaghetti code so developers need to use 
common sense to get the best out of Fusebox. On the other hand, no framework is 
a silver bullet!

MS: How about Mach-II, what is it good for?

SC: Like Fusebox, Mach II also helps separate presentation logic from business 
logic but by providing a dynamic event handling mechanism, Mach II makes it 
easier to write certain types of very complex applications - ones that involve a 
lot of internal state transitions.

MS: And what about drawbacks to Mach-II?

SC: Unlike Fusebox, Mach II requires that you use CFCs and have a good, solid 
grasp of object-oriented techniques. Both frameworks have pros and cons - which 
is why folks need to come to my talk!

MS: Will you show actual code in your session or is it all talk?

SC: Yes, I have a sample application that is built in four different styles with 
Fusebox and two different styles with Mach II that I use to illustrate points in 
my talk. It's actually a real world application that's in daily use, a task 
management application. I'll make the source code available after the 

MS: That is great! See you at CFUNITED.
Home  |  About  |  Topics  |  Speakers  |  Exhibitors  |  Register  |  News  |  Travel
© Copyright TeraTech Inc 2004. All rights Reserved.