I guess I will go first then. The answer is: "It depends".
Like Adam pointed out both of them are mature and very capable engines. Both have their stronger/weaker points, it is just matters what you are looking for. My over all impression is that those more comfortable in a J2EE environment may favor OBD where Railo is more inline with those more comfortable with "traditional" CF environment. I have evaluated them both on Windows 2003 and Centos Linux as stand alone servers, running as WAR's on top of Tomcat, and in conjunction with Apache and IIS, with my intention of using them as a primary CF engine for projects. And based entirely on my personal preferences I have made the decision to go with Railo. I like both. I have worked with the paid version of BD's Server JX and came "This close" to buying JX a couple of years ago. I foresee using both of them in a production environment in the future, but at this juncture I am partial to Railo. These are the factors that went into choosing one over the other. ------------------ Railo comes packaged with connectors for Apache and IIS. OBD connects to Apache using a proxy (mod_proxy_ajp/mod_proxy) and TTBOMK you need a third party module to connect OBD to IIS. My understanding that Apache takes a significant performance hit when used as a proxy to a J2EE server (This effects both Railo and OBD). I don't know if the same is true for Railo's connectors. It is arguably more dificult (a steeper learing curve) to get OBD running side by side with PHP under Apache than it is with Railo. It requires a non-trivial understanding of Apache's .conf files to run OBD side by side with PHP. At least this was my experience when running OBD under Tomcat. Perhaps others have had a different experience. BTW I have not tried running OBD side by side with PHP on IIS. OBD is Licensed under GPL, while the soon to be open sourced Railo 3.1 will be Licensed under under the LGPL. This means you have the option to bundle commercial apps with Railo with out having to open source the commercial apps under the GPL license, while with OBD any apps that you bundle with it must be released under the GPL license. IMO LGPL is much more flexibility in this respect. Railo has (and the OS version will be released with) a mature, production ready web GUI wheres OBD does not. OBD is rolling their own Admin and it is not production ready. It has no login/security and they even state on their site that "Currently has no security in place, we do NOT advise using the admin console in its current state on a production or otherwise important instance of OpenBD." On the up side for OBD is that you can use the admin of Blue Dragons developers version to create the XML and copy it to your OBD instance. You have to restart OBD in order to add a datasource. Correct me if I am wrong on this but last I knew Railo is part of the CFML Language Advisory Committee and will be working with Adobe in defining the a CFML "Standard". It is my understanding that, for what ever reason, OBD is not a part of the Committee. Railo is more CF 8 compliant than OBD. Railo is a couple dozen tags and functions short of Adobe CF 8. OBD is still pretty much V.7. A major factor in my my decision making process was Railo's inclusion of cfdbinfo. If I am mistaken or missinformed on any of this please feel free to correct me. Thanx ~G~ -- Gets a new bag of popcorn. On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 2:24 PM, Philip Kaplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Railo vs BlueDragon vs Smith vs ?? > > http://www.smithproject.org/ > http://www.newatlanta.com/bluedragon/ > http://www.railo.ch/ > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;207172674;29440083;f Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/message.cfm/messageid:313583 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
