I can use the CFMX MM DB drivers in a JSP page..No problem. however.. i need
to use it in a Java Application..tried to load the Driver..
Class.forName("macromedia.jdbc.MacromediaDriver")
Keep getting ClassNotFound Error..
I put the macromedia_driver.jar in the class path.. still not loading.. Do i
need to import something? What am i missing?Joe PS:Old Thread. I am just catching up on this Thread.. Isnt the idea to comply with J2EE Architecture? Model-View-Controller model etc.. Why would some want to write in-line Java..? Anyways... On Fri, 22 Nov 2002 09:09:16 -0500 Phil Costa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The decision to disallow inline java code was > definitely not a cut and dry one. One reason > was definitely to enforce a cleaner separation > of syntax; the other, which I hadn't mentioned, > was to remove some additional complexity from > the parsing/compiling process. Because of the > differences between typing and syntax, parsing > a page that had both Java and CFML/CFScript > would have been a bear. > > Phil > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jon Hall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, November 22, 2002 2:37 AM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: Re: Java in CF (CFMX) > > > Thursday, November 21, 2002, 11:54:58 PM, you > wrote: > > MT> Jon Hall wrote: > >> The case for allowing inline Java is simple, > CF developers can use > >> Java without having to know everything about > Java. Methods and > >> classes are easy to get. Compiling, > classpath's, and understanding > >> the lengths Java goes to, to abstract > everything, etc. is not. > > MT> Knowing just a little about a language as > deep/complex as Java can > MT> be "dangerous" in a number of ways... > > MT> It's very easy to run into errors in java > if you don't understand > MT> how it all works (ex. trying to instantiate > an interface). One of > MT> the overriding strengths of CF is that it > offers a great deal of > MT> power in an easy to use/learn style. This > sort of thing, IMO, goes > MT> against that strength. > > MT> Mixing CFML and Java can very quickly lead > to code that is horribly > MT> organized and difficult to follow/maintain. > Obviously, anal coders > MT> will keep things nice and neat, but others > will be mashing CFML, > MT> CFScript, Java, and SQL together > haphazardly. > > MT> Then there's the compatibility thing... > Java lists != CF lists. > MT> Java arrays != CF arrays. Etc. Again, > this can lead to confusion > MT> and cause all kinds of errors. > > I say let the coders (and the pm's who have a > clue ) who write the applications make the > decision on what works in their application. > I'm not trying to be facetious, but be brutally > honest, I couldn't care less that anyone else > thinks my hypothetical hybrid Java/CF code is > unorganized or difficult to maintain, as long > as those that it matters to, like my boss and > clients don't care either. So I don't see how > the fear of some overwhelming horde of > organized code existing somewhere out there, > just over the horizon, really is a valid > argument against allowing inline Java within CF > templates. > > >> CFQuery is the perfect example here. If CF > gives developers the power > >> to do whatever they want within cfquery > tags, then why not java > >> within cfjava tags? Seems's inconsistent to > me. Especially since > >> cfquery probably the biggest strength of the > CF language. > > MT> SQL and CFML serve 2 different purposes, > database manipulation and > MT> application logic. Java and CFML serve the > same purpose, > MT> application logic. > > That's not entirely true. TSQL and probably > PLSQL work fine within cfquery tags. Terrible > as it may sound, if I want to loop over a > cfquery that manipulates a cursor I can. > > I'm not saying there are not valid reasons for > disallowing inline Java, I'm just saying that > limiting the flexibility of CF just because of > the possibility that nasty code may come into > existence is not a good enough reason in my > opinion, but it's the only one that's been put > forward by both you and Phil. I also don't want > to start yet another debate about what's good > and bad for CF, but as you said earlier, I am > curious as well. Though I suspect it's similar > reasoning behind not allowing cfscript to call > tags in the past (not that I ever got the > reasoning behind that either). > > -- > jon > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in ColdFusion and related topics. http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.cfm
