>-----Original Message-----
>From: Scott, Andrew [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>Sent: Friday, October 27, 2000 12:56 AM
>To: CF-Talk
>Subject: RE: CF 5.0 "Bug Vote" is Now Open!>
>
>
>1) Hiding code: I mean lets take a scenario like this! I have a server,
>totally secured behind a firewall, anything below the web root is
>unaccesible to the IIS server. Thus I can register the cfx tags, now this
is
>means that I can write code to do hashing, and other calculations and
nobody
>can get this dll off the machine! Oh yeah it only ever will host one site!
That is a good point however it still seems like an extreme to go to
when just securing your server would be good enough... Dunno.
>2) Com objects are dll's, so why can I be able to create a com object to
use
>to do extra coding but I can't create a cfx which is also a dll. Your logic
>makes no sense. If I can decompile a cfx tag then I can decompile a com
>object! No!
Anything can be reverse engineered. Reverse engineering is fairly easy to
grasp. Yes you have to read assembler, yes it takes days, but the point is
it can be done.
Same with COM objects. Dont believe for a moment you can't tear apart a
COM object.
With *actual* encryption that cant be broken in one evening by a
determined C programmer those encrypted CF templates become magnitudes more
secure than that COM or DLL for security purposes
>3) Com objects have no real interaction back to CF like the cfx tag allows
>it to be, so a com object is a short term solution to a large term problem.
>So this is why I am looking for this ability, it would make more sense for
a
>MS house who already has VB skills to use these guys to write some good
>cfx's..... Do I need to go on, I can come up with thousands of times when I
>could have created a cfx to run faster, but I don't know Delphi, and I
>haven't touched C++ in 8 years. But had to resort to cfml to write the tag!
>There is a big difference between Com Objects and CFX Tags.
>
What about JAVA CFX tags and JDBC connectivity...? (Just a random thought
here)
I know some people will disagree here......
Languages are just tools.
Use what you are familiar with, but in order to have the increased speed
gains you usually have to drop to something a little lower level like
Java, or C++. I cant see how extending CFX's to VB is a good thing
when the current CFX API stinks and (according to Dave) the COM
functionality stinks. Some of the time the speed and functionality of
C++ or Java is needed and those API's are still sorely lacking.
You cannot always have the cheapeast/fastest solution.
As a side note. I have always despised VB and have never thought it
was a great way to make your applications portable. I dont like COM.
I dont like .NET. I dont like C#. I dont REALLY like Microsoft all
that much. I do not let my likes/dislikes get in the way of being a
productive programmer, and I realize there is a time and place to
just not worry about it. I dont mind using MS products.. but I like
avoiding it when it makes sense and is feasible to do so. Anyhow...
No Anti/Pro MS flamewars here, I dont really care when I go to
sleep at night what the server runs on as long as it is fast
and stable.
Jeremy Allen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists or send a message
with 'unsubscribe' in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
