Vernon, I guess it comes down to this: I get all kinds of benifits from CF Studio simply by using it. I don't need to declare a project or RDS server to get access to these functions. I don't need to previously declare any locations to get access to these functions. At the very most, I need to save my file so that relative paths can be determined. And even that is not an issue because we replace all paths with CF Variables. (i.e. App.BaseURL ).
As for mulitiple sites - I can't see how this is going to make my life easier. This means that if I need to transfer all or part of my web app to production, it means I need to synch the files on the Test Site, QA Site, PreProd Site, and Production Site - one site at a time. How is that different than simply copying the files to the appropriate (mapped) drives/folders or FTP/RDS servers? I fail to see how it's going to safe me any time. It'll actually cost me more, cuz now I have to set up these Sites, and manage them as well as my drive mappings. If I have a server rebuilt with a different name, I have to manage the site before it's any use to me - setting it to a location I have previously configured, and can access just fine through my file system. I don't see any benifits in this particular case. That said, I did use UltraDev and enjoyed it - including setting up the Sites bit there. But that was before I began working seriously on the code at a lower level, and realized that to make things work just the way I wanted them to, I had to go to code view, and ignore the automagic functions. At which point UltraDev became more cumbersome than CF Studio to use. Just because I myself don't use RDS, I know other developers swear by it - it's how they can access files and data, and data structure seamlessly. I myself use Query Analyser for the data end of things.... But not everyone has that capability (or license). To remove RDS, or having to jump through hoops to get to it, will make a large number of peoples lives miserable. My thoughts. Shawn Grover -----Original Message----- From: Vernon Viehe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, May 06, 2002 3:55 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Macromedia Folks: What are you thinking? Thanks for your comments. I hope you don't think I'm arguing with you, just trying to understand and explain. =) I have to emphasize that Site Definitions are core to a lot of Dreamweaver's functionality. It's not all about holding your hand! A lot of the behaviors (which you may or may not have used yet, but I'll bet that when you do, you'll be hooked) depend on paths, which requires DW have knowledge of your site structure. Other features need this knowledge as well. Yes, it does do some hand-holding, but that's because it's already there - hand-holding is not it's reason for existance! As far as the multiple environments (local, testing, sandbox, production), simply having multiple definitions is one easy way to handle that. (i.e. SiteDef1: local > testing SiteDef2 Local > Production or testing > production) And you don't have to use checkin-checkout. You can use DWMX in conjunction with SourceSafe, it's in the remote info area of the site definition. basically, instead of sending it to the server, you "put" it to SourceSafe (database). Oh, and I forgot to mention, one of the other messages said something about "syncing" those "extra" dw files. You can "cloak" anything you don't want synced (right-click the file/dir in the site window, choose cloaking...), and you can choose not to upload design notes (but those are really handy when you're working with a group of folks on the same project, so it's good to include them if you do share the work on the site with others). I've been around MM since the early days of MM. I can tell you it was always developed to be a hand-coder's tool. It's just that since it's the tool of choice for so many professionals, everyone wants to use it. But that was never the goal. I hope you guys really give it a chance. I love it, and I think most of you will too! I don't know what else to say about RDS/FTP in the open/save dialog. It's not there, I know you want it. I can't make it appear magically, but I can be sure to tell folks how much of my flesh it's cost me because it's not in there. OUCH! =) -Vern > -----Original Message----- > From: Shawn Grover [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, May 06, 2002 2:33 PM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: RE: Macromedia Folks: What are you thinking? > > > Thanks for monitoring this Vernon. And my comments below are > not meant to > be personal. > > However, I'm one who rarely uses FTP or RDS vis CFStudio > (actually, I have > yet to get RDS working right - one day, when it becomes > important). That > said though, I am a developer who knows how to manage my > files and develop > my own architectures as needed. The Site implementation of > DWMX forces me > to create a site, hence creating a Site file, hence imposing > file management > on me. If the features of UltraDev 4 are still present in that my > connection strings and such are stored in another file > somewhere, then I > also have an architecture decision imposed on me. I don't > need that level > of hand holding. > > I want to be able to work with my files, without having extra > files created > "for" me. I want the simplicity that DW promises for some of > the features, > without having to create an architecture I don't want, or is > not relavent to > my application. And this still has nothing to do with FTP/RDS. > > As for checking in/out of files - I uss VSS for that, why > would I want to > implement another tool? > > As for synchronization, Sites impose only two locations on > you - local copy, > and remote copy. However in a good development environment, there are > likely to be 3 or more locations. Currently we have a > development server, > then our QA server, then our pre-production server, and finally our > production server - never mind our sandbox server (where > development which > will impact on other users happens so as to minimize > inconvienience), and > then a completly unrelated testing server for proof of > concept work. The > site "feature" doesn't allow for any of this in an easy > manner - unless I > want to create a "site" for each of these locations. > > On the plus side, I think the site feature is a decent option > for lesser > experienced developers (who will quickly become frustrated with the > limitations imposed on them), or designers (who do not need > to deal with > these issues). It DOES have it's place. Just make it an > option - even a > default option, but give me some way to turn it off. > > CF Studio is a fantastic tool with features galore. However, > you don't need > these features to use it effectively. We treat it as a basic > text editor, > with some use of code snippets. Otherwise, we manage our > files ourselves, > and synchronize the files between the various locations > ourselves - much > more control this way, and easier to fix the "oops" issues. > We don't use > the Project option, because that is inherent in our directory > structures and > revision control software. And if Sites are equivalent to > Projects in this > case, then why would I use it or need it? > > My appologies for the rant. But it seems that there is some basic > understanding of how DEVELOPERS/CODERS work missing from some > parts of MM. > I'm grateful to see you and the other MM employees who > frequent this list > take interest in our concerns - gives me hope for the future > of CF, and the > development tools. > > > Shawn Grover > > -----Original Message----- > From: Vernon Viehe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, May 06, 2002 3:03 PM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: RE: Macromedia Folks: What are you thinking? > > > I wanted to talk to some of our most seasoned CF'ers around > here before I > got back with you on this. We stepped through what was > necessary to set up > the RDS connection and edit files both in CF Studio and DWMX, > and what the > fundemental differences are. We think we've boiled it down to > a few relevant > differences. > > 1.) You must declare a local root folder: > Keep in mind, you don't have to d/l the whole site to this > folder. In fact, > you can view files in the "remote" view so that you're > looking at them live > on the server. When you double-click the file, it will appear to open > directly in DW (what actually happens is that DW d/l's the > file to the local > folder you declared in the definition, if you chose "Edit > files directly on > the testing server" in the site wizard, or chose > "Automatically upload files > on save" in the regular definition box, DW will upload the > file as soon as > you hit Save.) This is in effect the same as editing live on > the server, > with the exception that you will have a local copy of > whichever file you > edited, saved in a corresponding location in the local folder. > > All in all, this doesn't seem to present any barriers to > one's workflow, > it's just a different methodology whose results are pretty > much the same in > both programs. > > 2. There is no option to use FTP/RDS in the save-as dialog box: > This means that to save & upload to another site/location > other than the > site currently chosen, you have to first save it to the corresponding > location in the local root folder of that site, then switch > to that site's > definition in the files window to "put" the file. This can > require a few > extra steps which I can see being a pain if you need to save > the same file > to several sites often. > > Otherwise, if it's in the current site, then the option to > Automatically > upload on save pretty much takes care of this. > > If the FTP & RDS Explorer in the save as dialog is important > to you, please > let us know by using the Feature Request and Bug Report form at: > http://www.macromedia.com/support/email/wishform?6213=6 > > I hope this helps! > > Vernon Viehe > Community Manager > Macromedia, Inc. > Online diary: http://vvmx.blogspot.com/ > > ______________________________________________________________________ Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in ColdFusion and related topics. http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.cfm FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
