> I figured I would summarize my position to avoid being
> misinterpreted.
Good summary - and hopefully this will bring the discussion back on
track (it certainly provides a cleaner framework discussion for some
points I want to make!).
> With that in mind, I think the new cfdocument tag and rich forms
> functionality is of huge value to the CFML community.
Agreed.
> I have integrated
> CFML-based web applications in the past with a variety of protocols without
> the support of an event gateway.
Presumably by writing Java or some other non-CF code, yes?
> To me, it seems the missing piece is the ability to
> invoke CFML from other sources than an HTTP request.
I agree - and Ben Forta's tour report mentioned the ability to access
CFCs from Java. My reading of that is that such functionality would be
separate from the event gateway (but I don't have insight into the
product team's features so I may be off-base). It seems to me that the
ability to access CFCs from Java is a pre-requisite for event gateways
and I'd be very surprised if the only way to access CFCs from Java was
via the event gateway framework!
> While the event gateway
> will provide that, it seems it will also provide more than that.
Yes, that is my reading of what has been said publicly too.
> The reason I feel that way is
> because I think it is far too easy for the community and 3rd party companies
> to provide various protocol adapters. With a simple Java API for the
> invocation of CFML it would be quite easy for someone with Java experience
> to write these adapters.
I hope you're right. I don't see how it could be anything but
beneficial for CF to have community-developed protocol adapters -
either through the event gateway or separately. If the community does
a better job at creating a "gateway" framework than Macromedia, CFers
will have more choice and the bar will have been raised even further.
In what way is that a bad thing?
> The real difference is constraints placed on the implementation by the event
> gateway. We have already heard that the event gateway will invoke CFC
> methods. What if we don't want CFC methods to be invoked? Will we have to
> write CFCs that then in turn call CFMs?
This is a good point and something I'm currently wrestling with as I
try to drive a Fusebox 4 application from the event gateway. However,
there are very good arguments for using CFCs:
- a CFM page does not have an easily identifiable Java 'handle'
(class) by which to manipulate it
- a CFM page does not have a well-packaged way to pass in arguments or
return data
- a CFC maps easily to a class with a set of callable methods
- CFC methods have a well-defined interface that accepts arguments of
arbitrary types and can return an object of an arbitrary type
I'm not saying it can't be done with CFM pages, just that for a 'first
cut' implementation, it makes more sense to use CFCs.
The same issue arises with Flash Remoting - in order to use a natural
calling interface in ActionScript, you need to connect to a CFC which
exposes a method-based interface.
I'm trying to find some interesting ways to make it realistic to
interact with CFM-based applications using the event gateway and, yes,
right now I'm "forced" to use a CFC to wire them together...
> What if the event gateway framework
> makes assumptions that aren't true for all protocols thus making it hard or
> impossible to implement some other protocol Macromedia didn't think about?
What if, indeed? Use the underlying Java / CF API that I would expect
to be there based on the information publicly available about
Blackstone...
> Heck, Macromedia can even supply a bunch of protocol
> adapters if they want; they just don't need to create a framework and force
> it on others.
As someone who is using Blackstone's event gateway, I can attest that
the framework adds value that makes using the protocol adapters
easier. I can't say any more than that due to the nature of alpha/beta
programs and NDAs but I hope that others will agree with me once
Blackstone is available to all CFers...
--
Sean A Corfield -- http://www.corfield.org/blog/
"If you're not annoying somebody, you're not really alive."
-- Margaret Atwood
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
