WebORB performs that same function as CF's built-in Flash gateway, except that it does it for both Flash and JavaScript/AJAX clients, and supports a variety of server-side objects other than just CFCs (see their architecture diagram that I provide a link to below).
Vince > -----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 > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Find out how CFTicket can increase your company's customer support efficiency by 100% http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=49 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:215024 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=89.70.4 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
