helped me understand the open source market. Most open source code are
developer tools and system level code. Perhaps to Dave's point, this is
because this type of code can be shared across companies without creating
issues at the corporate level. Very little is available at the application
level. Open source does not appear to be moving up the value chain and there
is at least one stream of thought that Microsoft, the devil themselves, will
help drive the commoditization of common applications through continued
extension of Windows.
This frustrates me since it appears that many of us spend too much time
reinventing the wheel and less time advancing the level of software that
businesses should have available to them. To address this in the only way
under my control, I am in the process of creating CFC's for the basic classes
of address, company, person, employee, customer, product, order, and invoice
and will submit them to CFLIB once I've had them in production for a bit of
time and feel comfortable that they work as advertised.
If anyone already has versions of these type of objects that they'd like to
share, I' appreciate any and all versions. Any code included will be fully
attributed....Conversely, if anyone would like to see and comment on the early
versions that I have now, let me know offline.
Andy
-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Watts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2003 7:40 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Survey: Open Source CF Stuff (was "Looking for Cold Fusion Fo
rum similar to FuseTalk")
> My last post on this subject got me to thinking: why isn't
> there more CF Open source? How do you guys approach the topic:
>
> ...
>
> 7) I already open source (or at least make available unencrypted
> copies of) at least some things. (This would include submitting
> unencrypted files to the developer's exchange)
That's where we fall, here at Fig Leaf. We provide lots of code samples and
modules at CFUGs, regularly. Most of these are relatively small, modular
things that do one thing specifically. We generally don't release entire
applications, since most of those are custom applications developed for
clients, but they share a lot of similar modules that we do release.
In my experience, there's not as much value in people's code as they tend to
think - once a competent programmer sees an interface that he might not have
thought of, it's usually not too difficult to work out an implementation on
his own.
> Why don't we have many full-featured (and open) forums, CMSs, Blogs,
> Security systems, inventory managers, shopping carts, and so on? We
> do have a LOT of parts for them - just very few complete ones.\
>
> Why is that?
I suspect that this is because CF itself isn't open source or free software.
Most CF developers are corporate drones (like me!) who work on large
projects for corporate use, which aren't open-sourced for obvious reasons. I
don't think there are too many complete, open-source J2EE applications in
the same vein, either, although it's easy to find specific modules that
perform common tasks.
Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
http://www.figleaf.com/
phone: 202-797-5496
fax: 202-797-5444
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
