Fusebox vs Mach-II 1

[DrumAt5280]

I am starting a new project and i am thinking of diving in to a framework such as Fusebox or Mach-II.

Since i am new to developing with frameworks i am thinking of going with Fusebox, because i hear that is it easier to learn.

But I am really into having my sites perform fast, before i even consider using a framework such as these my main question is this:

Do framework sites run faster, slower or pretty much the same speed as a "conventional" with developed without a framework?

Thanks

 

[coldfused]

Don't know about speed and don't want to hi-jack your thread but my question is search engine marketing. If everything is being pulled dynamically into an index page, how are we supposed to get any marketing done, pages indexed?

I was looking into fusebox aswell, but without SEO it's definately not feasable no matter the programming benefits.

Maybe we can have some comments on both?

----------------------------------------
Florida Web Design
Orlando Web Hosting
Florida Coldfusion Hosting

 

[DrumAt5280]

I think you are right, i am think against the framework idea because of SEO factors.

 

[TruthInSatire]

from google:

Fiction: Sites are not included in Google's index if they use ASP (or some other non-html file-type.)

Fact: At Google, we are able to index most types of pages and files with very few exceptions. File types we are able to index include: pdf, asp, jsp, html, shtml, xml, cfm, doc, xls, ppt, rtf, wks, lwp, wri, swf.

this means it can index dynamic pages. something it CAN'T do is index sites that use sessions and form variables to get to the preceding page. for example you'll never find the "thank you" page after creating an account on tek-tips in google.

If you don't ask the right questions, you don't get the right answers. A question asked in the right way often points to its own answer. Asking questions is the ABC of diagnosis. Only the inquiring mind solves problems.

-Quote by Edward Hodnett

 

[DrumAt5280]

Radio,

Thanks for your input.

How does Google do with more than one variable in the URL?

For ex: mysite.com/index.cfm?id=222&secondPG=33&thirdPG=44

The example above might be required to get to 3 pages deep within the site using Fusebox. Does Google follow that deep within a dynamic site or does it stop after the first dynamic URL?

Thanks

 

[TruthInSatire]

see this thread from earlier today. thread232-1032562 notice some of the url's have multiple variables.

keep in mind its really just 1 page, index.cfm. the content generated by index.cfm comes from the url variables so it isn't really 3 pages deep. a url is nothing more than text which a search engine has no problem indexing. as long as it can reach it by a spider you wont have a problem (a hyperlink on a page somewhere). that includes anchor tags too (mysite.com/index.cfm#myanchor) once a url is accessed with url variables (1 or 100) it's up to the server side scripts to generate the content for that page. once the content is generated it spits it back to the spider/browser which indexes the content associated with those variables.

If you don't ask the right questions, you don't get the right answers. A question asked in the right way often points to its own answer. Asking questions is the ABC of diagnosis. Only the inquiring mind solves problems.

-Quote by Edward Hodnett

 

[coldfused]

Great info Canned thanks.

----------------------------------------
Florida Web Design
Orlando Web Hosting
Florida Coldfusion Hosting

 

[TruthInSatire]

Now, to touch on the efficiency issue.

I have no idea. I've never seen any of the code it generates to complete a task. However I'm an avid fan of self coding so you know EXACTLY what's going on. The code a beginner writes may not be as efficient but as skill improves so will efficiency (in theory). what you could do is use getTickCount() before and after a process written in fusebox and write one yourself that does the same thing. use getTickCount() again to see what process is faster.

i would SPECULATE any "machine generated" code would be big, bloated, and slower. especially if it has to load included files it may not need for that perticular process but is part of that "circuit". Then doing the checks to be sure not to run the unneeded included code.

If you don't ask the right questions, you don't get the right answers. A question asked in the right way often points to its own answer. Asking questions is the ABC of diagnosis. Only the inquiring mind solves problems.

-Quote by Edward Hodnett

 

[imstillatwork]

Even on the most basic page in fusebox, there are Several includes and custom tags being loaded each view.

 

[pigsie]

Coming in late here...

To answer the original question, speaking as someone who has used both, neither framework is better than the other, its a matter of whether you are more comftable with a procedual framework (fusebox) or OO(mach-ii) see (

http://www.halhelms.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=newsletters.show&issue=032005_domainmodels)

for more info. I would recommend mach-ii as its an introduction to the world of OO and as Hal Helms would put it, not knowing OO in 2005 is career suicide (

http://hal.coldfusionjournal.com/read/1166185.htm)

Two answer the other comments, sorry but that is rubbish - there are tons of sites with dynamic urls being indexed by google, having a simple dynamic url does not harm seo and stat programs such as webtrends can now diffrientiate pages based on query string parameters as well as the page name. You can improve upon SEO with search engine safe urls and there are ways to achieve this using tools such isapi re-write (

http://www.isapirewrite.com/),

Apache Mod -rewrite, or in cfmx - if you control the box using a filter (

http://www.spike.org.uk/projects/fuservlet/).

Hope that helps