I don't think it is that disappointing honestly. I do think we need to continue, as engine developers, to have a dialogue with each other.There doesn't need to be this ceremonious board to do it. We have a discussion group for conventional wisdom and things that need vetted could go there. We also have phones and email where we can collaborate, it is on the engine developers to be nice and courteous. If we're thinking about adding a tag or a feature we need to step up and reach out to the other engine makers and talk to them and get some feedback. That's easy for me to say being in the completely open source camp (even for us we could improve on this though) I understand if Adobe is working on something they don't want to get out too far they'd rather not talk to other engines. If an engine is looking at adding cfjavascript but not going to follow the conventional syntax OpenBD established a little phone call is a good idea. Same thing when OpenBD looks to implement CF9 features we should be following what has been set forth.
Adam On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 11:50 AM, Judah McAuley <ju...@wiredotter.com>wrote: > > I find this to be a very disappointing development. I have no insight > into the politics behind this but I can definitely say that we are a > poorer community for this choice. > > http://www.adrocknaphobia.com/post.cfm/adobe-no-longer-part-of-opencfml > > I looked forward to being able to write applications to a spec and > have some confidence that they would run on multiple engines. It looks > like that will continue to be a dream. > > Judah > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology-Michael-Dinowitz/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/message.cfm/messageid:335655 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/unsubscribe.cfm
