3

I have a large Adobe ColdFusion 9 site that uses the no XML version of Fusebox 5.5. The site does not currently use CFCs in the model. The choices have been narrowed down to either CFWheels, Coldbox, or FW/1. My question is, which of those three would be faster and easier to convert to when moving from a Fusebox no XML site?

Thank you

James A Mohler
  • 11,060
  • 15
  • 46
  • 72
David McCan
  • 55
  • 4

1 Answers1

1

Ease of conversion is the wrong question. Conversion is a one-time event.

Maintenance is an on-going situation, and is a far more important factor to base your decision on.

Investigate your shortlist - they all come with sample applications - and determine which one you'd rather work with going forward, then do what it takes to convert - none of the three should be especially difficult.

(Though I've only dabbled with cfWheels and ColdBox, so can't guarantee there isn't some hidden gotchas that make them more complicated to convert, but again if they're easier for your team to work with, that's more important.)

Peter Boughton
  • 110,170
  • 32
  • 120
  • 176
  • Thanks for the response. Are you suggesting that it is all a matter of preference or that some might be more cumbersome to work with? If it is just a matter of preference then I might as well close the question. – David McCan Sep 13 '12 at 15:00
  • Kinda - depends how you define preference - they all have different aims, and it depends how those align with the developers using them. FW/1 is built to be deliberately lightweight/etc. ColdBox is built to be full-stack/enterprise. cfWheels is built to do whatever Ruby on Rails does. So for a RoR developer, FW/1 and CB would probably be more cumbersome. – Peter Boughton Sep 13 '12 at 15:07
  • Makes sense. I did take a more in depth look at them and they each have some nice features. One thing I saw is that CFWheels seems to make more sense when you you are starting a project from scratch and can easily use its ORM. – David McCan Oct 09 '12 at 19:10
  • What goals that you are trying to meet? – James A Mohler Nov 28 '12 at 23:47