Matt, Where would one find documenation on who to use java.io.file in Coldfusion MX?
Thanks, -Brad -----Original Message----- From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 11:22 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? Who needs cffile or cfdirectory when you can use use java.io.File? -Matt On Wednesday, September 3, 2003, at 02:12 PM, Doug White wrote: > Most Shared providers disable CFFILE and CFDIRECTORY anyway > > ====================================== > Stop spam on your domain, use our gateway! > For hosting solutions http://www.clickdoug.com > Featuring Win2003 Enterprise, RedHat Linux, CFMX 6.1 and all databases. > ISP rated: http://www.forta.com/cf/isp/isp.cfm?isp_id=772 > Suggested corporate Anti-virus policy: > http://www.dshield.org/antivirus.pdf > ====================================== > If you are not satisfied with my service, my job isn't done! > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ryan Kime" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 11:29 AM > Subject: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? > > > | >I used the word "free".....they use the word "included" > | > | Semantics, I know, but here is the page I am referring to: > | > | http://www.uniserve.com/bus/usa/web/rates_glance.php?c=nt > | > | > | >Why should they use Enterprise if it's not required (i.e. > clustering/load > | balancing etc.). > | > | Hmmmm...maybe to keep other people from using your database > connections and > | your custom tags. Plus keep the general population on the server > from using > | cfdirectory/cffile outside their account's root. That's enough to > make me > | look elsewhere. > | > | > | -----Original Message----- > | From: Bryan Stevenson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > | Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 11:07 AM > | To: CF-Talk > | Subject: Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? > | > | > | Well Ryan they are absolutely great and in 5 years I have never had > a CF > | related problem that wasn't fixed within 15 minutes of it being > found (and I > | can count how many issues on one hand). > | > | I used the word "free".....they use the word "included". > | > | Why would you "run away" if they are using Pro/Standard? Why should > they > | use Enterprise if it's not required (i.e. clustering/load balancing > etc.). > | > | These guys are a national ISP and can easily absorb the cost of the > | software....that's how. > | > | Cheers > | > | Bryan Stevenson B.Comm. > | VP & Director of E-Commerce Development > | Electric Edge Systems Group Inc. > | t. 250.920.8830 > | e. [EMAIL PROTECTED] > | > | --------------------------------------------------------- > | Macromedia Associate Partner > | www.macromedia.com > | --------------------------------------------------------- > | Vancouver Island ColdFusion Users Group > | Founder & Director > | www.cfug-vancouverisland.com > | ----- Original Message ----- > | From: "Ryan Kime" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > | To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > | Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 8:13 AM > | Subject: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? > | > | > | > "There's no such thing as a free lunch" > | > > | > I would be leery of *free* CF and SQL Server, both of those cost a > | > pretty penny and are not easy to cover without passing some of the > | > cost on to customers. It also makes me wonder why they use the term > | > "FREE" and not "included" when describing their plans. > | > > | > Which version of CF are they using? If it's Pro/Standard and not > | Enterprise, > | > don't walk, but run away as fast as you can. > | > > | > Ryan > | > > | > -----Original Message----- > | > From: Bryan Stevenson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > | > Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 9:55 AM > | > To: CF-Talk > | > Subject: Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? > | > > | > > | > Hey All, > | > > | > Just thought I'd chime in here. > | > > | > I've seen a lot of folks mentioning BlueDragon and how it may bring > | > down hosting costs for CF. Well I'm not sure about the US, but CF > is > | > starting > | to > | > be offered for NO EXTRA CHARGE up here in Canada. > | > > | > www.uniserve.com for example (and there are others). > | > > | > NT Hosting with SQL Server 2000 and CFMX in a shared environment > for > | > about $35 CDN/month and they rock!! I've used the company they > | > recently > | acquired > | > (Axion Internet) for the past 5 years and the service only got > better > | after > | > the merger. Beleive it or not the SQL Server does not even add any > | monthly > | > cost...just a $25 CDN setup fee!! > | > > | > So while BD may help bring other ISPs down to earth.....that move > is > | already > | > happening here ;-) > | > > | > Cheers > | > > | > Bryan Stevenson B.Comm. > | > VP & Director of E-Commerce Development > | > Electric Edge Systems Group Inc. > | > t. 250.920.8830 > | > e. [EMAIL PROTECTED] > | > > | > --------------------------------------------------------- > | > Macromedia Associate Partner > | > www.macromedia.com > | > --------------------------------------------------------- > | > Vancouver Island ColdFusion Users Group > | > Founder & Director > | > www.cfug-vancouverisland.com > | > ----- Original Message ----- > | > From: "Jim Davis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > | > To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > | > Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 6:54 PM > | > Subject: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? > | > > | > > | > > For me, I wouldn't at the moment just because I'm very happy > where I > | > > am (CrystalTech). > | > > > | > > However BlueDragon has the definite potential to bring CF hosting > | > > prices down significantly (one of the complaints I here about > CF) so > | > > I would really like to see it offered by a few hosts. > | > > > | > > As Vince pointed out in a branch from this thread BlueDragon also > | > > makes excellent sense for somebody that wants to package their CF > | > > application for use on a server lacking CF (which can be in > either > | > > J2EE or, soon, .NET). > | > > > | > > Although this market has traditionally been very small with CF > Blue > | > > Dragon may expand it greatly. > | > > > | > > Jim Davis > | > > > | > > > -----Original Message----- > | > > > From: Mike Brunt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > | > > > Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 11:28 AM > | > > > To: CF-Talk > | > > > Subject: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? > | > > > > | > > > There is another question in the whole Bluedragon debate. How > | > > > many of > | > > us > | > > > would move our site(s) to a hosting company using BD instead > of MM > | > > > ColdFusion? > | > > > > | > > > 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: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 7:56 AM > | > > > To: CF-Talk > | > > > Subject: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? > | > > > > | > > > > -----Original Message----- > | > > > > From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > | > > > > Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 2:16 AM > | > > > > To: CF-Talk > | > > > > Subject: Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? > | > > > > > | > > > > > If your clients are small enough where the cost of CF is > | > > prohibitive > | > > > it > | > > > > > may be likely that the cost of managing an Intranet is also > | > > > prohibitive > | > > > > > (although they may be doing it anyway and have never done a > | > > > > > cost analysis). > | > > > > > > | > > > > I'll agree with that, but certainly the use of certain > software > | > > > > e.g. > | > > > CF > | > > > > could be what tips the scale. If that is the case, then a > | > > > > cheaper implementation of CFML (BlueDragon) can certainly > help > | > > > > in that > | > > regard. > | > > > > | > > > It definitely has an effect, but in most cases (and certainly > not > | > > > in CF's case) the cost of software is very small compared to > | > > > maintenance and general infrastructure costs. > | > > > > | > > > Even managing a small, single Intranet server using free > software > | > > > can > | > > be > | > > > (often surprisingly) very costly once you do a full resource > | > > > map/prediction - especially when extended to the life of the > | > > > server. > | > > > > | > > > All that being said every little bit does help. ;^) If > software > | > > costs > | > > > are lower then you total project costs COULD definitely be > lower > | > > > (but often aren't due to other factors not commonly taken into > | > > > account). > | > > > > | > > > > > Many hosting companies are hosting their Intranet at > "public" > | > > hosts > | > > > for > | > > > > > this reason. There are some hosts that do nothing but > | > > > > > traditional Intranet applications along with email > (Exchange > | > > > > > hosting, for > | > > > example, > | > > > > > is pretty common due to the cost and complexity of > managing an > | > > > Exchange > | > > > > > server). > | > > > > > > | > > > > That may be, but there are serious issues with outsourcing > | > > > > internal > | > > IT > | > > > > resources externally that many of these companies may not be > | > > > > aware > | > > of. > | > > > > One example of this is that their WAN connection becomes a > | > > > > single > | > > > point > | > > > > of failure. Then of course there are legality issues related > to > | > > giving > | > > > > non-employees access to sensitive data that aren't under > | > > > > specific consulting agreements, which is the case when your > | > > > > email is hosted > | > > by > | > > > a > | > > > > 3rd party. > | > > > > | > > > All true - this all depends, of course, on how much the company > | > > > wants > | > > to > | > > > spend as well. If you want to get away more cheaply you'll be > | > > > sacrificing some things. A full "bullet-proof" system will > always > | > > cost > | > > > more. > | > > > > | > > > > > No, consider an Intranet with is planned to contain, let's > | > > > > > say, > | > > six > | > > > > > distinct applications (not at all uncommon). My case now > is > | > > > > > that > | > > > each > | > > > > > of these applications only has to save two hours of > | > > > > > development > | > > time > | > > > > > due > | > > > > > to CF for it to be just as cost effective as a "free" > | > > > > > solution. > | > > > > > > | > > > > Of course, the case with BlueDragon would only need to save > one > | > > > > hour per application. > | > > > > | > > > True. I'm not arguing against Blue Dragon but rather the > concept > | > > > that software costs (at this level) are major considerations. > Too > | > > > many > | > > times > | > > > I've heard "we can't afford CF" only to watch a company spends > | > > thousands > | > > > more pursuing an untried "free" solution. > | > > > > | > > > The problem here is almost always one of training and > | > > > applicability. > | > > A > | > > > company that has great Linux/PostGres/PHP people will, of > course, > | > > > use them. But a company looking for a solution often > gravitates to > | > > > free software due to cost concerns. > | > > > > | > > > Developers are then in the position of learning these tools as > | > > > they develop - which ends up costing far, far more in the long > run > | > > > than setting up, for example, a Windows environment that they > may > | > > > have some experience with. > | > > > > | > > > For a medium/large company this isn't a problem as the extra > time > | > > > can > | > > be > | > > > split with R&D/Training and down the road you do gain. But for > | > > > the > | > > very > | > > > small company this often locks them into a money-pit; tying > them > | > > > into > | > > a > | > > > solution they don't know and resulting either in a failed > project > | > > > or > | > > one > | > > > that doesn't meet expectations. > | > > > > | > > > Many of them are roped in by contractors that claim they can > "pick > | > > > up" something easily. My advice to small business is always > stick > | > > > with > | > > what > | > > > you know and always pay extra for gurus. > | > > > > | > > > Jim Davis > | > > > > | > > > > | > > > > | > > > > | > > > | > > | > > | > | > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com
