Thanks very much for the kind words, Mike. Really. You hit the nail on the head with respect to what's happening in a lot of shops. We all need to help them see that CFML can run in that environment natively.
As for FuseBox, I'll note that we have customers running Fusebox apps on BlueDragon. And where we had one issue with an approach used in some FB apps, we've addressed it. This is one reason why folks who have any interest at all in BD ought to join the BD-interest list (http://www.newatlanta.com/products/bluedragon/self_help/archive_search/inde x.cfm). Let me just counter the point about potential divergence between CF and BlueDragon implementations of CFML. As someone asserted earlier in this thread, this really isn't an issue unique to moving code between CF and BD. It's certainly an issue moving it among versions of CF. I think it's worth keeping in mind that the importance of portability in server-side apps is being questioned even in the J2EE world. J2EE servers offer features that extend the core specs. Yes, yes, someone will say that "but at least they all meet some minimum specifications". But the same issue arises in SQL. If you decide to use a given DBMS's extensions, you've lost portability. Indeed, the key in any such situation (whether J2EE, SQL, CFML, etc.) is really similar to a best practice in coding: code to interfaces, not to implementations. Or, keep the points where you do code to implementations organized in such a way as to minimize the impact when changes to come. In CFML, one instance of this is the segregation of SQL code in both FuseBox and CFCs, and/or in the use stored procedures. (SP's themselves are the height of server-specific implementations, but at least localizing the SQL code keeps it in one place rather than in a bunch of CFML pages.) Again, it goes back to coding practices. I've felt (after exploring the J2EE world for over 2 years) that we (the CFML community) have a lot to learn from the J2EE and broader OO worlds. Even if not using objects, there's just a way of doing things, whether in Java, C#, Smalltalk, etc, that is innate to them but foreign to most CFers. The problem is that it's so blasted hard to learn from any resources on those subjects. J2EE books presume you know Java, Java books presume you come from C and that you understand objects, Object and patterns books are usually written for experienced Java/C programmers. It's a real conundrum. I wrote of it in the Java Dev Journal magazine in Nov 2001 and Jan 2002, and both articles (like all my past ones) are at my old site, www.systemanage.com/articles/. /charlie > -----Original Message----- > From: Mike Brunt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Saturday, June 14, 2003 5:05 PM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: RE: CF Compatability > > > Jim this is a great email with some very well thought through points ("My > app conforms to CFML 5.1") love that thought. Just want to throw > a viewpoint > in here; we have been working with a large Enterprise level IBM > Shop for the > past 2.5 years or so. They are on a crusade to change a lot of the legacy > main-frame'ish applications over to web-based applications. Also they are > looking at web-based applications for their new application > needs. I would > suspect that there are other such enterprises doing the same sort > of thing. > Being an IBM shop they have staked their future on J2EE rather than .NET. > Currently the really big web based apps are coded using Smalltalk or Java > and/or are servlet based typically with Weblogic or Websphere. > However the > mid range apps are seeing a healthy growth in the use of ColdFusion (let's > say cfml based apps) which is great news. One of the main reasons they > chose to go with ColdFusion at that level is Fusebox. They are > very focused > on building web applications that carry with them a well-distributed > framework or standard/quasi standard, again I would guess this is pretty > typical at the larger enterprises. The important point here is our belief > from direct experience that Fusebox is important in keeping cfml > growing in > influence and usage in larger enterprises. > > Our belief is the combination of Fusebox, ColdFusion (cfml) and Flash will > blaze a path to releasing web applications from the constricts and > convolutions of pure html where the ever increasing GUI needs get more and > more demanding. We also think that it is great to have competing versions > of cfml providing we don't end up in a situation where something where an > app created for ColdFusion will not run on BD and vice-versa. This would > very much go against the needs of large enterprises in having broad-based > standards/frameworks and would do more harm than good to the > future of cfml. > > By the way Charlie, all the very best in your new'ish role like Jim Davis > here, you have given so much to the cfml world and very much > deserve to be a > continuing leading light because we will all benefit from that. > > 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: Jim Davis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Saturday, June 14, 2003 1:20 PM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: RE: CF Compatability > > [Just to get out of work for a minute; not as a direct response to > anybody.] > > Personally at this point I'm not sure I care about (small) > incompatibilities between CF5 and BD. > > I've been working with CF since version 1.5. Due to circumstances (my > location and the fact my company was an early adopter) I've been able to > watch ColdFusion/CFML (and its people) grow with some intimacy. > > CFML began as a handful of tags (six or seven) and with each major > version added new functionality - extending, but in some cases changing, > the language. > > Flash forward six years and we're here today discussing > incompatibilities between two CFML products. However any practical > discussion really should consider four (at least) products: > > 1) CF 4.5 is still is widespread use among larger shops. In general > enterprises are looking for a 2-5 year life cycle for products. I > honestly have yet to see a large company use anything but 4.5 > (unfortunately for use the move to .NET and "Pure" Java has killed that > for most - I personally will not be using CF at the office within a year > the new "enterprise standard" being pure WebSphere development). > > 2) CF 5.0 is, for many, the stopping point and they have no plans to > upgrade (or worse have attempted to upgrade and been forced to > downgrade). It's fast, capable, and (most importantly for some) is > still C++ and some runs their COM infrastructure components like MX > can't. > > 3) Blue Dragon is a tempting solution for many reasons. It's "almost > there" in terms of what most people do most of the time and although > still a bit rough on the edges it's cost and deployment flexibility are > very attractive. For my part it's also done more to popularize the idea > of CFML as a language-not-a-platform than anything else. > > 4) CFMX is the future, the new baby, and 400-pound gorilla all rolled > into one. The switch in platform (C++ to Java) was rough (and continues > to be rough) for many, but its development and deployment benefits are > obvious. MM is being (rightfully so) aggressive with its pricing (as > small shops are the bread and butter of CF). > > So, from my vantage, we're seeing a clear fragmentation of our support > and development market. We have large sections of our community being > left behind and a growing section taking off in a new direction. > > This can be a good or a bad thing, but the short-term results are most > likely going to be confusion and further enterprise apathy to the > product. I fear that these issues will, in that they draw lines in the > sand within the ColdFusion community, serve more to marginalize CFML > than promote it. > > > My opinion only, of course, but I feel it's an educated one. > > > Macromedia should, I feel, finally spend the time to publish an actual > specification for CFML (I think that CF has some great docs, but no > specs that I've ever seen). I feel that this will not only allow others > (like NA) to produce more compatible products but also improve the > quality of CF itself. > > A centralized, well-maintained repository of how things should work can > only be good for all involved. I'm not saying that they have to submit > it as a standard (or, like Sun, declare themselves a standards body) but > they should at least publish the geek bible. (They probably already > have this in one form or another). > > (The "extras" can be seen as vendor specific additions: CFSEARCH, > CFCHART, etc. The core language will be just that - with additional > services taking center stage.) > > I feel very strongly that they should (with this specification) version > CFML differently than CF. We should be able to understand that CFMX > supports CFML 6.0 but that RedSky supports CFML 6.1. ColdFusion 4.5sp2 > introduced new features: perhaps CF 4.5sp2 supports CFML 4.7. > > This will allow people to produce to very specific targets with > supporting products, CFML applications and alternative language engines. > I will not longer have to say "my app works in CF 5.0, CFMX and > Bluedragon." I could say "My app conforms to CFML 5.1" which implies > that. > > (And yes, I realize that the real world doesn't work quite that nicely. > But, as for more languages, it's a goal worth aiming for.) > > We should be able to track bugs as they relate to the CFML > specification. We can make definitive "should" (should act like this, > should work like this, etc) statements for HTML, CSS, JavaScript, Java, > etc. But with CF we're left with ambiguous claims of "compatibility" > simply because we can only compare implementations, not specifications. > > CF is great - I think the best web tool ever, but it's continually seen > as a marginal, proprietary product. In fact it's very often seen as a > toy. > > I think that a formalization of CFML in the shape of a true, managed > specification could help to change that image. > > > Okay... that wasted an hour. > > Jim Davis > President, http://www.depressedpress.com > Webmaster, http://www.firstnight.org > Webmaster, http://www.cfAdvocacy.org > Senior Consultant, http://www.metlife.com > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| 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 Host with the leader in ColdFusion hosting. Voted #1 ColdFusion host by CF Developers. Offering shared and dedicated hosting options. www.cfxhosting.com/default.cfm?redirect=10481 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
