> -----Original Message----- > From: Mike Brunt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Saturday, June 14, 2003 5:04 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 > * * * snip for space * * * > 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.
I agree totally. I'm not sure if it's specifically FuseBox (although as the largest "common platform" movement in CF it's definitely a major player) or more generically CF's newfound (in later versions) abilities to "play nice" with Enterprise standards (more generic presentation and application separation for example), but I think that CF _could_ rule the world of web apps - especially the presentation tier. CFML, as Fusebox shows, is quite capable of implementing complex software patterns. This is just one (or many) things that (somehow) needs to be communicated beyond our community. Unfortunately I also see a wellspring of technologies coming out that are attempting to marginalize many of CF's strengths. Things like the Java Standard Tag Library, Java Server Faces, and various other abstraction techs (many for PHP) are being used to sell other technologies as being "as easy as CF". Although I don't think that's true, corporate managers seem to. Corporate managers also react well to "standard" - although as we all know neither Java nor .Net are true "Standards" by any traditional definition (both companies still owning and controlling there standards). Macromedia could just as easily play the same game: declare themselves a "standards body" and manage the standards for CF and Flash/ActionScript. > 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. That's my hope as well. I feel strongly that Macromedia should continue to leverage the hell out of Flash to gain CF any foothold it can get. There are far worse fates than for CF to become the presentation technology of choice. ;^) I've personally been advocating for several years now that the "next big thing" in web application development would be contextual, usability-focused design. So obviously I'm all for Macromedia's Rich Internet Application direction. If FuseBox can convince more people of that direction then it's got my support! (Whatever that's worth...) 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 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
