>> aren't Java experts.
>>
> Writing an event gateway requires knowledge of Java
> therefore yours is not a valid argument.
Excuse me? MM is providing a handful of pre-built gateways to begin
with, much less having a consistent interface provided by MM which
allows others who are Java knowledgeable to create, package and
distribute additional gateways. At which point, yes, it is a very
valid argument. The end result will be that developers who are not
Java knowledgeable will be able to do things which would otherwise
require extensive knowledge of Java.
>> After all, a structure is just a Java object.
>> So what makes CF structures any better than
>> using the underlying Java object (which is
>> also available to us)?
>>
> You are using the underlying Java object.
<cfset mystruct.mykey = 0>
I use the CF -- CF uses the Java object. This is not the same thing as
me using the underlying Java object.
>> Frameworks designed better in the community:
>> yes and no. Although I
>> haven't used cflogin yet, I'm not about to rewrite the
>> "application
>> framework".
>>
> I bet more people are using their own authentication
> schemes than cflogin.
Probably. But very few (if any) are using their own application
schemes instead of <cfapplication>.
s. isaac dealey 954.927.5117
new epoch : isn't it time for a change?
add features without fixtures with
the onTap open source framework
http://www.sys-con.com/story/?storyid=44477&DE=1
http://www.sys-con.com/story/?storyid=45569&DE=1
http://www.fusiontap.com
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
