June 2, 2004
Mach II: Framework or methodology
There's a good question, and it was recently elaborated upon by my buddy, dave in this post.
Mach II came to life out of fusebox. My understanding is there was a divide in the fusebox community, some people wanting to utilize a procedural framework, and some people wanting to go an object oriented structure. If anyone can elaborate, please I'd like to hear the history.
So what is a framework?
A definition I've come across is that a framework is a class library that captures patterns of interaction between objects. A framework consists of a suite of concrete and abstract classes, explicitly designed to be used together. Applications are developed froma a framework by completion of the implementation of abstract classes. A framework can be also utilized to include additional utilities to aid in the completion of end-user applications.
So if we agree this defines a framework, what is a methodology?
A methodology is a codified set of recommended practices. I think that summarizes it up.
So what is Mach II. Well Mach II is definitely a framework, but utilizing that framework based software development, is a methodology. Utilizing a framework brings a different approach to solving a problem. One works from within the constraints of the framework, because the framework is extended for multiple applications.
So the code of Mach II itself is a framework, but utilizing Mach II in application development is a methodology.
Mach-II was originally called FuseboxMX. Hal had been thinking for some time about if/how to leverage the new OO capabilities of CFCs within Fusebox. As I understand it, he started working on FuseboxMX, but over time he realized that to make it truly OO required a radical departure for traditional Fusebox. To avoid sowing confusion and calling something Fusebox that was really a totally different beast, he and Ben decided to start from scratch and build something OO from the ground up. It was not a "bad" split, as Hal also spent a lot of time helping with Fusebox 4. Hope that helps clarify the Mach-II back story.
Posted by: Brian Kotek at June 2, 2004 10:23 AMYour definition of a framework is very restrictive. It assumes that you are dealing in an object oriented system. A better definition might be to say that a framework provides pre-written code, but a methodology does not. Alos, a framework is usually an implementation of a methodology.
Almost any framework will also provide some guidelines about how your code should be structured and how to use the pre-written code in your applications.
I would say that Mach-ii is definitely a framework that implements the MVC methodology.
Posted by: Spike at June 2, 2004 12:53 PMMVC is *not* a methodology - it's 'merely' a design pattern (using design patterns might be classed as a methodology, of course).
Spike's right about frameworks not being required to be OO tho'...
Posted by: Sean Corfield at June 3, 2004 2:58 AMFinally passed the test
Managing in light of McGregor's Theory X and Theory Y
CMMI
Kicking HIT Leadership Up a Notch
That's just some mumbo jumbo project management BS
Outcomes - The tactic to get to the strategy
Nurse Call, VOIP, and Wi-Fi: Its just cool when things come together!
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
August 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
Joel on Software
David Ross
Edward Prevost
Martin Fowler
The Health Care Blog
The Tales of Hoffman
The Business Word
Medical Rants
Christina's Considerations
Paul Levy
HIS Talk
Appropriate IT
Candid CIO
RSS feed




