I agree, it seems like the performance would be much better to invoke the calls directly from the application server, especially as the application and the client already natively understand each other...
-----Original Message----- From: Kevin Aebig [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 15, 2005 1:27 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Ajax and CFCs I'm a little foggy on why I'd call a middle tier like WebORB to handle my web service calls when I can easily use CF's built in Flash gateway or open source AMF-based alternatives? Cheers, Kevin -----Original Message----- From: Vince Bonfanti [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: August 15, 2005 8:21 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Ajax and CFCs I think it helps to understand the WebORB architecture, which is best explained on their web site: http://www.themidnightcoders.com/weborb/aboutWeborb.htm WebORB is first of all a server (its full name is "WebORB Presentation Server") that acts as a "gateway" or "broker" that allows rich clients (Flash or JavaScript/AJAX) to invoke server-side objects. In the case of JavaScript/AJAX, WebORB allows clients to use a single protocol--implemented by the WebORB Rich Client System--to invoke a variety of server-side objects. Once you realize it's the WebORB server that's actually invoking CFCs (on behalf of the client), and not the client invoking CFCs directly, then it should be clear that invoking the CFCs on BlueDragon directly makes more sense than invoking them via web services. It doesn't make sense to use web services protocols to invoke objects that reside on the same local server--the performance is much better to invoke them directly. Vince Bonfanti http://blog.newatlanta.com New Atlanta Communications, LLC http://www.newatlanta.com > -----Original Message----- > From: Micha Schopman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, August 15, 2005 9:34 AM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: RE: Ajax and CFCs > > Vince, > > Have there been any specific reasons you know of for taking such a > proprietary approach or was it mainly aimed towards best performance > because of its close integration? > > Micha Schopman > Project Manager > > Modern Media, Databankweg 12 M, 3821 AL Amersfoort Tel 033-4535377, > Fax 033-4535388 KvK Amersfoort 39081679, Rabo 39.48.05.380 > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > ---------- > -------------------------------------------------------------- > ---------- > ----- > Modern Media, Making You Interact Smarter. Onze oplossingen verbeteren > de interactie met uw doelgroep. > Wilt u meer omzet, lagere kosten of een beter service niveau? > Voor meer informatie zie www.modernmedia.nl > -------------------------------------------------------------- > ---------- > -------------------------------------------------------------- > ---------- > ----- > -----Original Message----- > From: Vince Bonfanti [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: maandag 15 augustus 2005 13:33 > To: CF-Talk > Subject: RE: Ajax and CFCs > > Jim, > > The WebORB implementation doesn't use SOAP or web services to invoke > CFCs on BlueDragon--instead, WebORB invokes them directly via > BlueDragon's internal APIs. > > Also, WebORB works with both the Java/J2EE and .NET editions of > BlueDragon. > > Vince Bonfanti > http://blog.newatlanta.com > > New Atlanta Communications, LLC > http://www.newatlanta.com > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Jim Davis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Monday, August 15, 2005 1:04 AM > > To: CF-Talk > > Subject: RE: Ajax and CFCs > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Mike Chambers [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Sent: Monday, August 15, 2005 12:51 AM > > > To: CF-Talk > > > Subject: Re: Ajax and CFCs > > > > > > There is nothing there that couldn't be done with CFMX (or > > any other > > > server language). > > > > > > It is a simple request / response using AJAX. JavaScript > > sends data to > > > ColdFusion, ColdFusion sends a response back, JavaScript > > updates the page. > > > > My guess (nothing more) is that it the same problem that other SOAP > > implementations have: they don't like each other. > > > > MS implementations work great with .NET service but bomb on CFMX > > services for example. CF implementations work great in some places > > and blow up in others... > > > > In my experience these problems, once dug out, are pretty > small - but > > that doesn't matter because it seems the implementers don't really > > care all that much - it works for what they want it to work > with and > > everybody else can just toe the line or use something else. > > > > It's also very likely (because SOAP isn't all that simple) that > > they're using some off-the-shelf implementation inside this thing. > > And if that implementation doesn't support CF SOAP/WSDL then this > > thing won't. > > > > Jim Davis > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Logware (www.logware.us): a new and convenient web-based time tracking application. Start tracking and documenting hours spent on a project or with a client with Logware today. Try it for free with a 15 day trial account. http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=67 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:215023 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.4 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
