Sean made a distinction about core language functionality versus add-ons and I think that I should have made that distinction more strongly myself. His example of the for-in loop for arrays is a good one. I'm writing a lot of code today looping over arrays of objects. I'm using the for(i=1; i <= ArrayLen(myArray); i++) syntax because i know it works everywhere. I would much rather use a for-in loop but due to the changes that Adobe made in 9.0.1, Railo and Adobe are temporarily incompatible. Railo has made changes to match compatibility but it will be a bit before it makes its way to the stable release. And I have no idea if OpenBD supports that syntax at all.
Another example would be transactions. I wanted to write a transaction in cfscript today. I know that CF9 supports it. I don't know if Railo or OpenBD does or if they do, whether there are any major differences. If a developer comes in, downloads the current release of Adobe Coldfusion, Railo or OpenBD and then finds some random tutorials and examples of CFML on the web, I think that all the core language features should just work. There will be thinks like cfldap, S3 integration and such that won't and I'm ok with that. But I do think that a core, coordinated, language is not only key to helping existing developers be more productive, it is also key to attracting and retaining new developers. Cheers, Judah On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 12:17 PM, Adam Haskell <a.hask...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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:335658 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/unsubscribe.cfm
