Lite Application Frameworks for ColdFusion
Posted by AJ Mercer at 10:38 am CFML | ColdFusion | Railo
Recently there seems to have been some backlash against monolithic
application for ColdFusion - they are too hard to learn, there require
to much effort to set them up ...But probably the works criticism of
all, is they take the fun out of ColdFusion development.
In reply to this, a number of 'lite' application frameworks have sprung up. For Example
- Barney Boisvert's FB3Lite
- Sean Corfield's Framework One
- Brian Meloche's LightFront
So I was wondering,
- how good are these frameworks?
- can they hold there own again the big Frameworks?
- and are they really easier to pick up and run with?
I was also wonder how the authors of the 'Lite' frameworks feel about
- the framework used as a learning tool / stepping stone to a 'real' framework
- they are for 'Hobbyists', not 'Real developers'
And in the future, will the authors feel the need to implement requests for developers that will turn the 'lite' framework into monolithic application?
Sean Corfield wrote on 11/04/09 4:37 am
How good is FW/1?Well, the 70+ folks on the FW/1 mailing list seem to love it and there are already some sites in production using FW/1.
Can FW/1 hold its own against the big frameworks?
How would you measure this? By definition, these "lite" frameworks do not have all the features of the bigger frameworks - but that is by design, based on the premise that not all developers need those features. The bigger frameworks have established user bases and communities. Time will tell whether any of the smaller frameworks gain such traction.
Is FW/1 really easier to pick up and run with?
That I'll say "yes" to, and point people at the Getting Started Guide:
http://fw1.riaforge.org/wiki/
Four lines of code across three files gets you a working FW/1 application.
FW/1 as a learning tool / stepping stone?
Because it's easy to pick up, I'd hope that FW/1 offers an easy on-ramp for anyone considering a framework. If they can happily build applications with it, they may not need to go elsewhere. FW/1 wasn't built as a stepping stone, it was built as a simple, self-contained framework. It already has a real community and real production sites are running on it (and I haven't really promoted it much). Can it serve all your needs / everyone's needs? No, but no framework is a one-size-fits-all deal. I've used CB / FB / M2 / MG over the years and they each have pros and cons. I expect I'll use FW/1 more and more over time tho'...
Hobbyist vs Real Developer?
I built it for real developers but I won't be upset if hobbyists use it too :)
Lite vs Monolithic?
FW/1 has some over-arching design principles that will keep its scope under control. One of those principles is that the framework should be a single, self-contained CFC. Anything that would break that model would be refused as an enhancement request. FW/1 was 'born' almost feature complete and the (fairly well-commented) code is still under 750 lines. I'd like it to always stay in triple digits which is another limit on scope.