I have a question for Sean, how much of MM's web site is running on CFMX using CFCs? I imagine that is a reasonable yardstick, as MM's site must be fairly busy.
Kind Regards - Mike Brunt Webapper Services LLC Web Site http://www.webapper.com Blog http://www.webapper.net Webapper <Web Application Specialists> -----Original Message----- From: John Quarto-vonTivadar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 7:28 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: FBX3 AND CFMX > CFCs work just fine and can be used to build high-performance, > scalable systems. I think it's very unfair of Hal to claim there are > "just too many problems with CFCs" without providing more specific > details. Sean, We'll be releasing FB4 pretty soon now. We chose not to base it on CFCs {although one can easily use CFCs with it as well as CF5, ASP, PHP and JSP). To answer your question, our thinking is as follows: CFCs are not ready for the big time. The reasons why have been discussed and debated for literally months by tons of people on the various lists. We've also spent months tinkering with FBMX based on CFCs and realized that everytime we plugged one Macromedia hole, another one appeared. We're glad that some people are out having some whatever type of success they've enjoyed with them, but we don't feel we can release a new FB standard based on them unless and until Macromedia makes CFCs work to such a point that they are more than just effectively structures with UDF's attached to them. Nor are we prepared to recommend to the Fusebox community that they are the way to go. Otherwise we will only turn CFCs' problems into Fusebox's problems. With CFCs one effectively gets most of the headaches of objects with almost none of the benefits -- and that's the heart of the issue, isn't it: if Macromedia really believes its own hype about OO then one might as well just switch to Java or C# and get a real OO language. Maybe we'll get to that point in some future release by Macromedia. Maybe we'll get to that point once New Atlanta releases their BD version that implements CFCs correctly. Either or both will be welcome. God knows I'd love to be able to tell people to use CFMX in a production enviroment but I have no such confidence in it ... yet. Respectfully, it's not for us to prove that CFCs can be used to build high-performance scalable systems (would still love to see one). Rather it's for Macromedia (or CFC supporters?) to convince us, the community of developers. It's an issue of risk: if we're wrong and you're right, then all we lose is some time. But if you're wrong and we side with CFCs then we do considerable damage to Fusebox, which is much more than just ColdFusion. This is not a bet worth taking. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| 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 Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
