access odbc error
Hi I have this problem: I have an access 2000 database with 72,000 booktitles in it. It has indexing, the table that is searched in this search only has 6 fields [ID, ISBN, Title, Author, Price, Category_ID and InStock] I have a search using LIKE and % - and I need to have some form of like search. i have cached the query Everything was working fine until a couple of weeks ago when we started getting (intermittently) the below error (I cannot create the error on my personal server) Error Diagnostic Information ODBC Error Code = S1001 (Memory allocation error) [Microsoft][ODBC Microsoft Access Driver] Not enough space on temporary disk. SQL = "SELECT ISBN, Title, Author, Price, StockLevel FROM tblTitles WHERE 0=0 AND Title LIKE '%potter%'" Data Source = "PAPERCHAIN_DATA" The error occurred while processing an element with a general identifier of (CFQUERY), occupying document position (2:1) to (2:107). Date/Time: 04/28/01 14:32:01 Browser: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.5; Windows NT 4.0) Remote Address: 210.8.44.17 HTTP Referer: http://www.paperchain.com.au/search/search.cfm My ISP says he can see no memory spike, and they have 512 mg ram. has anyone had this sort of error or have any clues as to where I should go from here. (I should say that website owner does not have the money to go to SQL Server at the moment, and does NOT get very many hits at the present) Hope some one can help - I am getting very frustrated Seamus ~~ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
Re: Australian Macromedia partner
Yes, I know Firmware VERY well, and it was them that told me that Macromedia didn't have a Partner Program like the Allaire one that we are in. >Wrong. They have FirmwareDesign (http://www.firmware.com.au). > >-Original Message- >From: Nick Texidor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >Sent: Saturday, 28 April 2001 00:05 >To: CF-Talk >Subject: RE: New CF5 Partner Hosting License > > >The first thing that sprang to mind when I read this was... >Macromedia don't even have a partner program of any sort. At least >not available here in Australia. > >So that could indicate that there isn't much of a 'Developer >Community' within Macromedia! > > ~~ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
Re: Daily Image on Static Pages
Thanks Michael, It worked! By the way: you're the only one that understand what I wanted. the problem was guys - no ability to change the picture name because all pages were statics. Michael suggested a great way to refresh photos even if they have the same name, by adding a random number (generated by Javascript, on the fly)! Thanks! - Original Message - From: "Caulfield, Michael" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, April 27, 2001 11:52 PM Subject: RE: Daily Image on Static Pages > There are a ton of different ways to do this, but if you want to keep > everything else cached or static, you can do this: > > > imgName='' > document.write(imgName) > > > The unique query string will cause all browsers I know of to regard it as a > different object. This should make sure the image is refreshed, without > requiring a hit on the CFServer. It works with both local cache (IE/NN) and > proxies that follow the HTTP 1.1 standard on proxy behavior (including AOL). > > It's been a while since I've played with this, let me know if it works for > you --- > > Michael Caulfield. > > -Original Message- > From: Michael Lugassy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2001 9:53 AM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: Daily Image on Static Pages > > > All of my pages on the site are static. > I'm trying to change an image daily on a certain place on the navigation > bar with a CF schedule (by assigning a diffrent image to the same > name, every day). > Apparently, only people who hit REFRESH (or Ctrl+shift Refresh) > can see the diffrence, because the image is with the same name, > and close size... > > what is the best way, if any, to make this image change, without > caching itself? (only itself, not the whole document..) > > maybe by using something like this: > > > and in the dailyimg.cfm put: CFOBJECT img src=/images/2105.gif? > > > -- > Thanks, > > Michael. > ~~ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
Re: FAQ POSTED: New CF5 Partner Hosting License
I didn't have the balls to post this to the list. (still don't) but I think you just nailed it. I ws actually saving up to buy an actual license and server this fall but... > > I wonder how many CF'rs will now be consulting with Ivanapulo? :-) > ~~ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
Re: [send html page using CFMAIL]
Using CFHTTP to "fetch" the page content and then put #CFHTTP.filecontent# in the body on will work! worked fine for us. 1000s of emails sent. you can check html newsflash design and get ideas from us: http://www.imvamp.com/newsflash.html don't forget to put TYPE=html in the CFMAIL don't forget to use absolute (http://domainname/images/";) to all of your pictures. Hope this helps, Feel free to contact me offlist about this. Thanks, Michael Lugassy, IT/WEB Specialist Interactive Music Ltd. ~~ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
Re: FAQ POSTED: New CF5 Partner Hosting License
lol ok, maybe to the list then. Still... the stretch from a very small business (like mine) to a web host is a step that is no longer an option. Very disappointed ~~ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
Re: FAQ POSTED: New CF5 Partner Hosting License
- Original Message - From: "Steve Pierce" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2001 4:50 AM Subject: RE: FAQ POSTED: New CF5 Partner Hosting License > The Server Hosting license is a 20% price increase for hosting. If you are > unlucky enough to host on a quad processor Compaq box, the cost for a > license just went up a whopping 140%. This is not what we needed. > > - Steve It is very bad news and a remarkabley stupid move on their part, I really don't think the British hosting companies are going to go for that sort of price hike so - it may be time for me to leave CF... > -Original Message- > From: C. Hatton Humphrey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, April 27, 2001 11:10 PM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: FAQ POSTED: New CF5 Partner Hosting License > > > There is now an official definition of the Cold Fusion 5.0 Hosting Service > Provider edition available at: > http://www.allaire.com/products/coldfusion/cf5hostingfaq.html. It was > posted on one of the other lists I'm on and I'm suprised it didn't make it > here. > > I'm glad I waited to chime in... this is actually looking to me to read like > an improvement rather than a money grab. Anything to improve the > reliability "out of the box" for any of the hosting providers is a big plus. > I've dealt with two, one that didn't care beyond the collections department > and another that bent over backwards to help. In both instances the server > hit periods of problematic operation. Now I'm hoping this version will > stabilize things a bit. > > (*resubmits his purchase request for the CF Developers Cert Study Guide*) > > Enjoy the weekend! > Hatton Humphrey > > -Original Message- > From: Michael Dinowitz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, April 27, 2001 6:50 PM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: Re: New CF5 Partner Hosting License > > > A/MM just posted to the list a nice rundown on what's happening. Close > enough for the weekend. > > > > > Don't panic yet. I believe a FAQ is in the works that will explain all > > this. > > > Stay tuned. > > > > > > > > Ahh, but will the FAQ arrive before we all spend the weekend planning our > > alternatives? :) > > > > > > > ~~ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
RE: FAQ POSTED: New CF5 Partner Hosting License
This is very disturbing, as a new CF developer who was very excited about its future, I am now reevaluating the languange I will specialize in. :-< Rich -Original Message- From: Wayne Putterill [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2001 7:04 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: FAQ POSTED: New CF5 Partner Hosting License - Original Message - From: "Steve Pierce" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2001 4:50 AM Subject: RE: FAQ POSTED: New CF5 Partner Hosting License > The Server Hosting license is a 20% price increase for hosting. If you are > unlucky enough to host on a quad processor Compaq box, the cost for a > license just went up a whopping 140%. This is not what we needed. > > - Steve It is very bad news and a remarkabley stupid move on their part, I really don't think the British hosting companies are going to go for that sort of price hike so - it may be time for me to leave CF... > -Original Message- > From: C. Hatton Humphrey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, April 27, 2001 11:10 PM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: FAQ POSTED: New CF5 Partner Hosting License > > > There is now an official definition of the Cold Fusion 5.0 Hosting Service > Provider edition available at: > http://www.allaire.com/products/coldfusion/cf5hostingfaq.html. It was > posted on one of the other lists I'm on and I'm suprised it didn't make it > here. > > I'm glad I waited to chime in... this is actually looking to me to read like > an improvement rather than a money grab. Anything to improve the > reliability "out of the box" for any of the hosting providers is a big plus. > I've dealt with two, one that didn't care beyond the collections department > and another that bent over backwards to help. In both instances the server > hit periods of problematic operation. Now I'm hoping this version will > stabilize things a bit. > > (*resubmits his purchase request for the CF Developers Cert Study Guide*) > > Enjoy the weekend! > Hatton Humphrey > > -Original Message- > From: Michael Dinowitz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, April 27, 2001 6:50 PM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: Re: New CF5 Partner Hosting License > > > A/MM just posted to the list a nice rundown on what's happening. Close > enough for the weekend. > > > > > Don't panic yet. I believe a FAQ is in the works that will explain all > > this. > > > Stay tuned. > > > > > > > > Ahh, but will the FAQ arrive before we all spend the weekend planning our > > alternatives? :) > > > > > > > ~~ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
Re: FAQ POSTED: New CF5 Partner Hosting License
I meant 5 hours downtime...doh! jon - Original Message - From: "Jon Hall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, April 27, 2001 11:44 PM Subject: Re: FAQ POSTED: New CF5 Partner Hosting License > As a smaller hoster whos web servers have excellent uptime, 5 hours total in > 2000! We get calls all the time from people talking about the unreliability ~~ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
Re: Don't Panic
Don't think so, looks to me like MM is trying to push the little guys out. time to dust off that PHP book Way to frigginn go MM - Original Message - From: "Wayne Putterill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, April 27, 2001 6:09 PM Subject: Re: Don't Panic > > - Original Message - > From: "Michael Dinowitz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Friday, April 27, 2001 8:34 PM > Subject: Don't Panic > > > > Without going into exact details let me say that we, the CF developers who > > either own a box or rent one (not shared) have nothing to worry about. Put > > down that PHP book now! > > Even those on a shared server shouldn't worry overly. > > Is it just me that had shudders down the spine at the "overly" bit... > > Sorry, but any increase on price is a very, very bad move on their part, > there must be thusands of developers like me that rely on shared servers for > a living - and CF is already too expensive in that environment. > > >The FAQ will be out > > from A/MM, you'll have your info and things will be peaceful in the world > > again. > > > > > > > > > > > ~~ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
Where can I get Stream Environment Protocol in Windows 2000 AS?
Hi! I want to setup dynamic ClusterCats Fail-over and must install Stream Environment Protocol, but can't find it in Protocol tab in Windows 2000. In Windows NT 4.0 it is appears there. Please help me find it in Windows 2000. Best regards, Alex. ~~ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
Re: Don't Panic
Even so it looks bad for shared hosting. If you have a dedicated box fine, just keep on with pro or enterprise. (Having a server all to yourself is better anyway), However, for the shared hosts I see them dropping CF to support PHP, ASP whatever. I fear MM has truly shot it's self in the foot Rick - Original Message - From: "Michael Dinowitz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, April 27, 2001 3:34 PM Subject: Don't Panic > Without going into exact details let me say that we, the CF developers who > either own a box or rent one (not shared) have nothing to worry about. Put > down that PHP book now! > Even those on a shared server shouldn't worry overly. The FAQ will be out > from A/MM, you'll have your info and things will be peaceful in the world > again. > > > > > ~~ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
Re: Don't Panic
Another thought that came into my head.. ouch... was that of the current sites written in 4.5 that are hosted on these shared boxes. What happens (if &) when MM goes ahead with these plans, and the shared hosts stop supporting CF4.5? That's going to leave the owners of the sites with a smallish problem, and the developers are going to be stuck with having to redevelop them in an alternate language, or moving them to a CF5 host, at an increased cost to the developer. Ok.. not a particularly nice thought... and could be off track... but something else for our company to consider for the future. So now I have to decide whether to move back to ASP, or continue with Servlets/JSP. At least servlets/jsp is something that will run under CF6 if it's worth going back to it later! Who knows! Ok.. will stop rambling now! Sorry to waste yer time! N >Even so it looks bad for shared hosting. If you have a dedicated box fine, >just keep on with pro or enterprise. >(Having a server all to yourself is better anyway), However, for the shared >hosts I see them dropping >CF to support PHP, ASP whatever. > >I fear MM has truly shot it's self in the foot > >Rick > > > >- Original Message - >From: "Michael Dinowitz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: Friday, April 27, 2001 3:34 PM >Subject: Don't Panic > > >> Without going into exact details let me say that we, the CF developers who >> either own a box or rent one (not shared) have nothing to worry about. Put >> down that PHP book now! >> Even those on a shared server shouldn't worry overly. The FAQ will be out >> from A/MM, you'll have your info and things will be peaceful in the world >> again. >> >> >> >> >> > ~~ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
RE: Don't Panic
> What happens (if &) when MM goes ahead with these plans, > and the shared hosts stop supporting CF4.5? If they already provide CF services then they've already spent the money and have income flowing from it. Hard to see them suddenly dropping CF when they can just choose not to upgrade? Ken ~~ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
RE: Don't Panic
But there will come a point when they will no longer support CF4.5, because MM will have dropped support for it. I know this is in the distant future.. but still something that we have to consider (we, being our business) when deciding what to do that is best for our future. > > What happens (if &) when MM goes ahead with these plans, >> and the shared hosts stop supporting CF4.5? > > > >If they already provide CF services then they've already spent the money and >have income flowing from it. Hard to see them suddenly dropping CF when they >can just choose not to upgrade? > >Ken > > > > > ~~ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
Re: Hosting Service Provider Edition Clarification
Actually, I think the muddy water is about what is an "application"... Massimo "Brian Hogue" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message > What is the difference between two CF applications on my PC against two > applications on a Hosted PC? > Please note that I did not say both applications are mine ... they could be. > This seems very muddy water. ~~ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
Re: Hosting Service Provider Edition Clarification
What I am curious about is after this "scare" is over, just how many developers have decided to move on to another language. Seems like a lot of people out there are deciding it is time to pick up another language for fear of CF being too much money or not around in the future. So even if MM decides at the last minute not to go up in pricing, how many people did they end up loosing from all of this, but do they really care, I doubt it. - Original Message - From: "Massimo Foti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2001 9:59 AM Subject: Re: Hosting Service Provider Edition Clarification > Actually, I think the muddy water is about what is an "application"... > > Massimo > > > "Brian Hogue" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message > > What is the difference between two CF applications on my PC against two > > applications on a Hosted PC? > > Please note that I did not say both applications are mine ... they could > be. > > This seems very muddy water. > > > > > ~~ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
RE: Hosting Service Provider Edition Clarification
> What I am curious about is after this "scare" is over, just how many > developers have decided to move on to another language. Sounds like more work for those of us "left behind". :) Ken ~~ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
CFM-Resources? Are they alive?
I've been trying to ask a support question for over a week now, and no reply from CFM-Resources. Since they changed all their passwords, mine don't work and I can't get Tito or Pablo to answer me - Is anyone else having this problem? I can't go on much longer without having proper access to my site. Cheers, Mike Kear Windsor, NSW, Australia AFP WebWorks Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
RE: New CF5 Partner Hosting License
Steve, Excellent points. Might I also add that some of us ISPs are actually web development shops and hosting companies as well. In our web development shop, some of our designers are just getting into application development. And these guys are fast learners. I have pointed them towards CF because it is a good RAD environment for them to learn in. They have already built some pretty impressive CF apps running on SQL. But when we give a quote for a web development job, we factor in the CF work, the CF License, as well as the increase in hosting that a CF site will cause. In many cases, our larger clients opt for a dedicated server. Since the bottom fell out of the PC server market, it is not unheard of to build a CF server that costs $1500 that will run Win2K, SQL Server, and CF all on the same box. This actually works pretty well for a small application, and we are doing this now. But add up the software cost: CF Pro: $1200 M$ SQL Server (only 5 licenses): $1400 Win2K: $600 (ASP Included Free) As much as I hate a command line interface, Linux, PHP and MySQL are starting to look attractive. Especially for these smaller sites that need their own box for security, whatever. I agree with you Steve, MM should drop the price on CF Server to gain market share. Market share is important. And for god's sake if you are going to try to get more revenue from hosting companies, then at least provide tools to make managing the security of the sites easier. IMHO the sandbox feature should be standard across the board. Maybe they should merge Enterprise and Professional editions to accomplish this. John McKown, Owner Delaware.Net, Inc. 30 Old Rudnick Lane, Suite 200 Dover, DE 19901 phone: 302-736-5515 toll free: 888-432-7965 fax: 302-736-5945 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] icq: 1812513 -Original Message- From: Steve Pierce [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, April 27, 2001 11:46 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: New CF5 Partner Hosting License We have already been told by Allaire sales reps that there will substantial price increases for hosting companies with hundreds or thousands of domains/applications and that if we need licenses, the time to buy is now. This is from your own sales folks. Allaire has a well established history of announcing a fire sale on the current partner membership before a major price increase. This is a way to try and keep the partners from screaming too loud when the price change comes in and to generate a short spike in partner revenue before that program price is also increased. I would love to be surprised by a price decrease across the board for CF server licenses, but your own sales folks are telling us to buy now before the price goes up. Last time during the beta cycle we were promised sand boxing and other features that would make large scale hosting, ApSP, and shared hosting systems more secure. Then at the last moment, sand boxing and the other security enhancements were moved into a new version of software called CF Enterprise which was not covered by existing maintenance contracts for Pro. So folks had to scramble for new license agreements and when they did, they found that the price of CF went up with a five fold increase to some $5,000. Hence why many hosting companies are still with 4.0 and didn't upgrade to 4.5. Now taking a page from Microsoft's successful price increase of SQL Server to processor based and connection based licensing, McAllaire is looking to do the same thing. We have already heard from MM in past conference calls with analyst and at meetings about adaptive licensing, tiered licensing, and increasing license revenue streams. These appear to be code words for, the price is going up. The difference is Microsoft has not significant competition or alternative in the NT SQL market. ISP's are the backbone for CF deployment and for introducing new developers to CF. The price should actually be going down for these companies not up. When ASP and PHP are already free to hosting companies, it means a lot for hosting companies to spend real dollars to license CF. I recently watched one of Inline's largest hosting company shelve iHTML after a major price increase by Inline and there was hardly a whimper from the customer base. The ISP gave everyone a reasonable period of time to transition their apps. In the end, they lost just a handful of customers that said they wanted to stick with iHTML. CF is not invincible in the ISP market. Allaire can't depend on a huge outcry from customers to force Hosting companies to keep CF or lose a significant revenue stream. The stream is not that significant and there are other lower cost and just as effective options to CF. What do you expect would happen if an ISP told their customers that ASP and PHP host pricing will remain the same but the cost of CF hosting will increase by 25 to 50%? We have some early research that indicates as many as 70% of those customers would opt fo
RE: FAQ POSTED: New CF5 Partner Hosting License
> -Original Message- > From: C. Hatton Humphrey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > On all 4 servers I've seen one similariaty: If you load the > server down too badly, or if there is a case where one of the > 150-200 other sites hosting in a shared environment "blows up". > If there's something that's going to reduce the hair-loss > progression of a server admin, then I'm personally all for it. Given Allaire's past performance and Macromedia's lacking record in the application server market, I doubt the first release of CF5 will have anywhere near "enterprise" stability. Nothing but an informed opinion, of course, but with the snafus surrounding 4.5 (that's a .5 release, not a new version!) and Allaire's inability/unwillingness to issue timely patches, I will not rush to recommend shelling out a minimum of 6k per box on an unproven product from a vendor that's been proven deficient many times. How many sites can one host on a dual proc CF5 box? How many more sites can one host on a similar Apache/PHP or IIS/ASP box? PHP4 and ASP are tested, trusted and well-supported technologies. CF5 is not. Macromedia's arrogance in assuming that they can shove their new pricing structure down the throats of those they think are locked into their product is unwarranted and short-sighted. > advertising costs money. It's all relative to the importance of > what you're offering to the customer and where you want to position > yourself in the market. True. That's why you might not want to be locked into a solution from a small-time, unpredictable vendor who tries to compete with some of the bigger players in an industry where it has no respect, no brand-name recognition and very little developer support. The next 12-18 months will show if Macromedia stays commited to ColdFusion and manages to stay in business. Alienating the small-business market that drives (from what I've seen) a lot of their sales is not a smart move when most of the "enterprise" market would not even consider ColdFusion as a viable alternative to competing technologies. > As a consumer, yes, I'd be willing to pay $5 or $10 more per > month in order NOT to have to tie up my hosting provider's tech > support lines with "It's down again". I would not. I'd rather host cheaply with a UNIX host offering PHP with once in a blue moon maintenance reboots or a serious W2k provider running technologies native to the platform. > To look at this in another light, how many people have you heard say, "I'm > not upgrading to (Insert ANY Windows Release here) when it comes out, they > want too much money for it." A year later they're boasting the > latest box! The difference being, of course, that Windows is the dominant platform in many markets and new versions offer tangible benefits (I'm not talking about consumer Windows). On the other hand, when deciding to select a platform for a fresh deployment, Windows loses a lot of its appeal given currently available alternatives. And so does ColdFusion. Cheers, Seva Petrov ~~ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
Re: Hosting Service Provider Edition Clarification
True, but also sounds like less CF work for people like me. The people that I do small sites for, already do not want to pay a premium for CF and if/when the pricing goes up they will not pay for it period. Just means I get to code their sites in something else, personally I would prefer not to, but I also want to bring in a pay check. I doubt my day job is going to get rid of CF, however if they have to pay a great deal more for the licensing I could easily see them just staying with the current version of CF that they are running on all of their servers and then slowly getting sites redone in ASP since we already do ASP there. - Original Message - From: "Ken Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2001 10:37 AM Subject: RE: Hosting Service Provider Edition Clarification > > What I am curious about is after this "scare" is over, just how many > > developers have decided to move on to another language. > > > > Sounds like more work for those of us "left behind". :) > > > Ken > > ~~ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
RE: FAQ POSTED: New CF5 Partner Hosting License
> That's why you might not want to be locked into a solution from a > small-time, unpredictable vendor who tries to compete with some of the > bigger players in an industry where it has no respect, no brand-name > recognition and very little developer support. Is this how you describe Macromedia/Allaire? If so, I have to question what planet you're from. While PHP would fall into the category if there were actually a "vendor", Macromedia/Allaire/CF can't accurately be described in that manner. Ken ~~ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
RE: CFM-Resources? Are they alive?
Mike |I've been trying to ask a support question for over a week now, and no reply |from CFM-Resources. Since they changed all their passwords, mine don't work |and I can't get Tito or Pablo to answer me - Is anyone else having this |problem? I can't go on much longer without having proper access to my |site. I assume you've tried http://helpdesk.cfm-resources.com/? I haven't tried the helpdesk link yet, so... Do you have a paid account? I think I read somewhere that paid accounts still use the old passwords, try that and see if that works. I just have a free account at the moment, and I'm still waiting on the free account control panel (supposed to be up May 1st--we'll see), and I can't get into the forum because the dang thing won't send my password..grr. I can ftp okay with my new password, so if you have a free account, I don't know what to tell you :( Goodluck. Gina ~~ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
Getting current page name.
I am writing a custom tag and I need to get the url of the page calling the tag to complete the scripting in the custom tag. Can anyone provide a simple way of achiving this? CF server 4.5. Thank you. Jeff Davis ~~ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
Re: Hosting Service Provider Edition Clarification
- Original Message - From: "Aaron Rouse" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2001 5:16 PM Subject: Re: Hosting Service Provider Edition Clarification > True, but also sounds like less CF work for people like me. The people that > I do small sites for, already do not want to pay a premium for CF and > if/when the pricing goes up they will not pay for it period. Just means I > get to code their sites in something else, personally I would prefer not to, > but I also want to bring in a pay check. > > I doubt my day job is going to get rid of CF, however if they have to pay a > great deal more for the licensing I could easily see them just staying with > the current version of CF that they are running on all of their servers and > then slowly getting sites redone in ASP since we already do ASP there. Thats the big problem now, I have been happy to use CF for the past three years in building small sites as I believed it had a real future ahead of it. It seems that MM are abandoning the small developer in favour of chasing the enterprise market - my customers are never going to be able to justify that sort of expense on a server. So the next contract I get I will have to think about using ASP, or more likely PHP, simply because they seem to have a future in the markets I deal in. Maybe we should organise a symbolic demonstration to show MM our feelings on this matter - perhaps if nobody posts to the list for a day they may wake up and realise what they are doing. > - Original Message - > From: "Ken Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2001 10:37 AM > Subject: RE: Hosting Service Provider Edition Clarification > > > > > What I am curious about is after this "scare" is over, just how many > > > developers have decided to move on to another language. > > > > > > > > Sounds like more work for those of us "left behind". :) > > > > > > Ken > > > > > ~~ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
RE: Getting current page name.
Try referencing #caller.CGI.SCRIPT_NAME# see if that works. Jeff Garza -Original Message- From: J Davis To: CF-Talk Sent: 4/28/01 10:20 AM Subject: Getting current page name. I am writing a custom tag and I need to get the url of the page calling the tag to complete the scripting in the custom tag. Can anyone provide a simple way of achiving this? CF server 4.5. Thank you. Jeff Davis ~~ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
Re: New CF5 Partner Hosting License
About a year ago I was really frustrated with the hassles of managing clients web sites that my company had developed applications for. Most end users are not permitted to connect to their host providers RDS, rather they have the FTP flavor of managing there files. Some ISP's have control panels so you can at least manage the datasources but control panels for CF are far an few between. Sounds like there will be added support for the hosting environment in CF 5 but maybe the license will be prohibitive to the smaller ISP's. What I did a year ago to alleviate this problem was build a tool that the ISP of my client could install for free and then I would give my client a free license to abort the 30 day trial. I can manage the clients datasources, verity, advanced security, log files and edit cfm templates right online. There are a multitude of articles on query best practices and the custom tag model thus far is a pretty fair method of creating reusable code. I guess for now with the tools that I use I will be ok with not upgrading to CF 5. It will be interesting to see the outcome of this in the future. Bryan LaPlante Network Web Applications Inc. http://www.netwebapps.com - Original Message - From: "John McKown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2001 10:40 AM Subject: RE: New CF5 Partner Hosting License > Steve, > > Excellent points. Might I also add that some of us ISPs are actually web > development shops and hosting companies as well. In our web development > shop, some of our designers are just getting into application development. > And these guys are fast learners. I have pointed them towards CF because it > is a good RAD environment for them to learn in. They have already built > some pretty impressive CF apps running on SQL. > > But when we give a quote for a web development job, we factor in the CF > work, the CF License, as well as the increase in hosting that a CF site will > cause. In many cases, our larger clients opt for a dedicated server. Since > the bottom fell out of the PC server market, it is not unheard of to build a > CF server that costs $1500 that will run Win2K, SQL Server, and CF all on > the same box. This actually works pretty well for a small application, and > we are doing this now. > > But add up the software cost: > > CF Pro: $1200 > M$ SQL Server (only 5 licenses): $1400 > Win2K: $600 (ASP Included Free) > > As much as I hate a command line interface, Linux, PHP and MySQL are > starting to look attractive. Especially for these smaller sites that need > their own box for security, whatever. > > I agree with you Steve, MM should drop the price on CF Server to gain market > share. Market share is important. And for god's sake if you are going to > try to get more revenue from hosting companies, then at least provide tools > to make managing the security of the sites easier. IMHO the sandbox feature > should be standard across the board. Maybe they should merge Enterprise and > Professional editions to accomplish this. > > John McKown, Owner > Delaware.Net, Inc. > 30 Old Rudnick Lane, Suite 200 > Dover, DE 19901 > phone: 302-736-5515 > toll free: 888-432-7965 > fax: 302-736-5945 > e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > icq: 1812513 > > > > -Original Message- > From: Steve Pierce [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, April 27, 2001 11:46 PM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: RE: New CF5 Partner Hosting License > > > We have already been told by Allaire sales reps that there will substantial > price increases for hosting companies with hundreds or thousands of > domains/applications and that if we need licenses, the time to buy is now. > This is from your own sales folks. > > Allaire has a well established history of announcing a fire sale on the > current partner membership before a major price increase. This is a way to > try and keep the partners from screaming too loud when the price change > comes in and to generate a short spike in partner revenue before that > program price is also increased. > > I would love to be surprised by a price decrease across the board for CF > server licenses, but your own sales folks are telling us to buy now before > the price goes up. > > Last time during the beta cycle we were promised sand boxing and other > features that would make large scale hosting, ApSP, and shared hosting > systems more secure. Then at the last moment, sand boxing and the other > security enhancements were moved into a new version of software called CF > Enterprise which was not covered by existing maintenance contracts for Pro. > So folks had to scramble for new license agreements and when they did, they > found that the price of CF went up with a five fold increase to some $5,000. > Hence why many hosting companies are still with 4.0 and didn't upgrade to > 4.5. > > Now taking a page from Microsoft's successful price increase of SQL Server > to processor based and connection based licensing, McAllaire i
Question..
I have a self referencing table: tableID, tableinfo, parentID The top level items are when the parentID is equal to zero. Given a tableID is there a way (in SQL) to find the number of all it's children (no matter how deep)? Getting it's children is easy: select * from tableinfo where parentID = #mytableID# Then you can just use recordcount. But, that won't give you any of your children's children. I know that I can just throw the above code in a loop until their are no more children, but I was wondering if there was a better way (a stored procedure, maybe?). Any thoughts would be welcome. Thanks! Jeffry Houser | mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] AIM: Reboog711 | ICQ: 5246969 | Phone: 860-229-2781 -- Instant ColdFusion 5.0 | ISBN: 0-07-213238-8 Due out June 2001 -- DotComIt, LLC database driven web data using ColdFusion, Lotus Notes/Domino -- Half of the Alternative Folk Duo called Far Cry Fly http://www.farcryfly.com | http://www.mp3.com/FarCryFly ~~ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
Re: Getting current page name.
At 01:20 PM 04/28/2001 -0400, you wrote: >I am writing a custom tag and I need to get the url of the page calling >the tag to complete the scripting in the custom tag. Depends how much of the URL you want. You could pass the template name as a parameter, hard coded. If you want the full URL, you could append together these two CGI variables: #cgi.HTTP_HOST# & "/" & #cgi.SCRIPT_NAME# http_host will give you just the domain name, and script_name will give you the name/directory of the current template. >Can anyone provide a simple way of achiving this? CF server 4.5. Thank you. > >Jeff Davis > > > > ~~ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
RE: New CF5 Partner Hosting License
Perhaps I didn't read things quite correctly, but doesn't this development work in favor of those small developers who put a box somewhere and go into the business hosting the apps they develop? And doesn't this development also mean the financial barriers have been raised for a customer to transfer their CF app to a non-single-developer hosting provider? It's kind of like McDonalds vs Burger King. The cost barriers to entry for McDonalds to compete with BK by ripping out their grills and going to broiling are prohibitive. best, paul At 08:18 PM 4/27/01 -0400, you wrote: > > I'm betting the change isn't as drastic as we're > > making it out to be though. ~~ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
RE: FAQ POSTED: New CF5 Partner Hosting License
> > That's why you might not want to be locked into a solution from a > > small-time, unpredictable vendor who tries to compete with some of the > > bigger players in an industry where it has no respect, no brand-name > > recognition and very little developer support. > > Is this how you describe Macromedia/Allaire? If so, I have to > question what planet you're from. While PHP would fall into the > category if there were actually a "vendor", Macromedia/Allaire/CF > can't accurately be described in that manner. While it is true that "enterprise" acceptance of PHP remains limited compared to ASP or Java, the technology is not being distributed with a single target market in mind. What Macromedia appears to be doing with ColdFusion is position the product as an alternative to widely recognized, widely deployed solutions by other, larger, more successful, reputable and experienced vendors. In that market, they are small-time and unpredictable - not the least because of Allaire's history of releasing poorly tested software while not providing the kind of support that is expected from an "enterprise" vendor. Combine this with the uncertainty and personnel problems inevitably associated with any merger/acquisition, and chances are CF5 will be pushed to market with enough bugs to bring back the grand old 4.0 and 4.5 days. It would not be in Macromedia's best interest to price itself out of the lower half of the market, while never gaining acceptance in the upper half. They have neither the goodwill nor sufficiently unique technology to take that risk. Cheers, Seva Petrov ~~ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
RE: Getting current page name.
Jeff, Try: #listgetat(CGI.SCRIPT_NAME,listlen(CGI.SCRIPT_NAME,"/"),"/")# That should strip off everything but the current template being executed. Peter -Original Message- From: J Davis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2001 10:20 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: Getting current page name. I am writing a custom tag and I need to get the url of the page calling the tag to complete the scripting in the custom tag. Can anyone provide a simple way of achiving this? CF server 4.5. Thank you. Jeff Davis ~~ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
Re: Getting current page name.
Here is the snippet of code. "http://www.prolookink.com/";#cgi.SCRIPT_NAME#"" what I need is the calling page name, but for some reason it does not seem to be working. Do I need to use single quotes around the CFOUTPUT tags? - Original Message - From: "Jeffry Houser" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2001 4:33 PM Subject: Re: Getting current page name. > At 01:20 PM 04/28/2001 -0400, you wrote: > >I am writing a custom tag and I need to get the url of the page calling > >the tag to complete the scripting in the custom tag. > >Depends how much of the URL you want. You could pass the template name > as a parameter, hard coded. >If you want the full URL, you could append together these two CGI variables: > > #cgi.HTTP_HOST# & "/" & #cgi.SCRIPT_NAME# > > http_host will give you just the domain name, and script_name will > give you the name/directory of the current template. > > > >Can anyone provide a simple way of achiving this? CF server 4.5. Thank you. > > > >Jeff Davis > > > > > > > > > ~~ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
RE: FAQ POSTED: New CF5 Partner Hosting License
> What Macromedia appears to be doing with > ColdFusion is position the product as an alternative to widely recognized, > widely deployed solutions by other, larger, more successful, reputable and > experienced vendors. Can you provide a few concrete examples of these alternative solutions that are more widely distributed, recognized and reputable? Ken ~~ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
RE: Getting current page name.
cgi.script_name starts with a "/" so all you need to do is take the trailing "/" from your URL. Like this: "http://www.prolookink.com";#cgi.SCRIPT_NAME#"" -Original Message- From: J Davis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2001 11:04 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: Getting current page name. Here is the snippet of code. "http://www.prolookink.com/";#cgi.SCRIPT_NAME#"" what I need is the calling page name, but for some reason it does not seem to be working. Do I need to use single quotes around the CFOUTPUT tags? - Original Message - From: "Jeffry Houser" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2001 4:33 PM Subject: Re: Getting current page name. > At 01:20 PM 04/28/2001 -0400, you wrote: > >I am writing a custom tag and I need to get the url of the page calling > >the tag to complete the scripting in the custom tag. > >Depends how much of the URL you want. You could pass the template name > as a parameter, hard coded. >If you want the full URL, you could append together these two CGI variables: > > #cgi.HTTP_HOST# & "/" & #cgi.SCRIPT_NAME# > > http_host will give you just the domain name, and script_name will > give you the name/directory of the current template. > > > >Can anyone provide a simple way of achiving this? CF server 4.5. Thank you. > > > >Jeff Davis > > > > > > > > > ~~ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
RE: New CF5 Partner Hosting License
On 4/28/01, Paul Smith penned: >Perhaps I didn't read things quite correctly, but doesn't this development >work in favor of those small developers who put a box somewhere and go into >the business hosting the apps they develop? I am basically such a developer. I may have 2 clients with access to my box who even know what ColdFusion is, other than what I tell them. So I'm fine with Pro rather than Enterprise. So you'd have to explain to me how spending $6,000 for functionality I don't require when the functionality I do require is available for $1,100 will work in my favor. > >And doesn't this development also mean the financial barriers have been >raised for a customer to transfer their CF app to a non-single-developer >hosting provider? The problem for me is not my existing clients. Everything I've built to date is built to run on 4.0/4.5. I'll keep them on a box with 4.5. But I won't be able to update that 4.5 to 5.x and take advantage of the new benefits for future sites. And when I fill up my current box and need a new box, then what if 4.5 isn't available? I'm not going to spend $6,000 because I'd have to raise hosting prices on that box and the average 45 per month I charge to host CF sites now is right at the upper limit of what an end user will pay that doesn't understand the technology or that doesn't have a very profitable website. So, I get out of the dynamic application hosting business or I take advantage of a free technology. -- Bud Schneehagen - Tropical Web Creations _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ ColdFusion Solutions / eCommerce Development [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.twcreations.com/ 954.721.3452 ~~ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
Re: Getting current page name.
I use this snippet >Can anyone provide a simple way of achiving this? CF server 4.5. Thank you. > >Jeff Davis ~~ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
RE: FAQ POSTED: New CF5 Partner Hosting License
> Can you provide a few concrete examples of these alternative > solutions that are more widely distributed, recognized and > reputable? Sure: http://www-4.ibm.com/software/webservers/appserv/ http://www.bea.com/products/weblogic/server/index.shtml http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/guide/server/features/application.asp Cheers, Seva Petrov ~~ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
Re: Getting current page name.
The / is the only output I get from this. It doesn't display the page name. - Original Message - From: "Peter Froh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2001 2:14 PM Subject: RE: Getting current page name. > cgi.script_name starts with a "/" so all you need to do is take the trailing > "/" from your URL. > > Like this: > "http://www.prolookink.com";#cgi.SCRIPT_NAME#"" > > -Original Message- > From: J Davis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2001 11:04 AM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: Re: Getting current page name. > > > Here is the snippet of code. > > "http://www.prolookink.com/";#cgi.SCRIPT_NAME#"" > > what I need is the calling page name, but for some reason it does not seem > to be working. Do I need to use single quotes around the CFOUTPUT tags? > - Original Message - > From: "Jeffry Houser" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2001 4:33 PM > Subject: Re: Getting current page name. > > > > At 01:20 PM 04/28/2001 -0400, you wrote: > > >I am writing a custom tag and I need to get the url of the page calling > > >the tag to complete the scripting in the custom tag. > > > >Depends how much of the URL you want. You could pass the template name > > as a parameter, hard coded. > >If you want the full URL, you could append together these two CGI > variables: > > > > #cgi.HTTP_HOST# & "/" & #cgi.SCRIPT_NAME# > > > > http_host will give you just the domain name, and script_name will > > give you the name/directory of the current template. > > > > > > >Can anyone provide a simple way of achiving this? CF server 4.5. Thank > you. > > > > > >Jeff Davis > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ~~ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
OT: CF to PHP discussions
I am starting to look into resources for converting Cold Fusion apps to PHP (not solely as a reaction the recent events but it has certainly made me more eager to proceed with this research). If anyone has any information or is interested in starting such a resource could they please contact me off-list Thanks -- Among modern occupations, only cult leaders and TV weathermen rival the technological visionary's ability to retain credibility despite all evidence to the contrary. Nathan Myhrvold email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] web: http://www.pixelgeek.com/ Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
RE: FAQ POSTED: New CF5 Partner Hosting License
> http://www-4.ibm.com/software/webservers/appserv/ > http://www.bea.com/products/weblogic/server/index.shtml > http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/guide/server/features/application.asp That explains your outlook a bit. Based on Macromedia/Allaire statements since the merger, MS is the only one from that list that targets the same market that CF is aimed at. Functionality, of course, is similar amongst them all with each having it's own strength. BEA and IBM solutions both carry higher price tags just to get in the door without even considering the cost/time to actually deliver a completed solution. Vendor support in each case varies widely. And I can't remember the last time I saw a hosting provider that offered shared hosting services with BEA or WebSphere...there must be a few somewhere. I would also question the "more widely deployed" and "more experienced" aspects of your concerns when comparing CF to each of these. (ASP being more widely deployed since you get it with NT whether you want it or not, of course). Ken ~~ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
RE: FAQ POSTED: New CF5 Partner Hosting License
also check out dynamo at www.atg.com. -Original Message- From: Seva Petrov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2001 11:28 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: FAQ POSTED: New CF5 Partner Hosting License > Can you provide a few concrete examples of these alternative > solutions that are more widely distributed, recognized and > reputable? Sure: http://www-4.ibm.com/software/webservers/appserv/ http://www.bea.com/products/weblogic/server/index.shtml http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/guide/server/features/application.asp Cheers, Seva Petrov ~~ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
Re: Getting current page name.
I don't think you need any quotes at all. "http://www.prolookink.com/";#cgi.SCRIPT_NAME#"" If this is in an HREF, then it'll ignore everything after the first second quote. Just try this (no quotes): http://www.prolookink.com/#cgi.SCRIPT_NAME# Of, if this is in a CFSET, try something like this: http://www.prolookink.com/"; & #cgi.SCRIPT_NAME#> #myvariable# (Is this helping?) At 02:03 PM 04/28/2001 -0400, you wrote: >Here is the snippet of code. > >"http://www.prolookink.com/";#cgi.SCRIPT_NAME#"" > >what I need is the calling page name, but for some reason it does not seem >to be working. Do I need to use single quotes around the CFOUTPUT tags? >- Original Message - >From: "Jeffry Houser" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2001 4:33 PM >Subject: Re: Getting current page name. > > > > At 01:20 PM 04/28/2001 -0400, you wrote: > > >I am writing a custom tag and I need to get the url of the page calling > > >the tag to complete the scripting in the custom tag. > > > >Depends how much of the URL you want. You could pass the template name > > as a parameter, hard coded. > >If you want the full URL, you could append together these two CGI >variables: > > > > #cgi.HTTP_HOST# & "/" & #cgi.SCRIPT_NAME# > > > > http_host will give you just the domain name, and script_name will > > give you the name/directory of the current template. > > > > > > >Can anyone provide a simple way of achiving this? CF server 4.5. Thank >you. > > > > > >Jeff Davis > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ~~ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
RE: New CF5 Partner Hosting License
> You have to remember, MM wants to make money, not necessarily > provide a better development environment for us. This can be > achieved by bringing CF down to the point a general HTML > developer can create a viable application. Two points: 1. You can take out "MM" from the above sentence, and replace it with any publicly-held company. That's the job of companies. Not to "provide a better development environment", not to make the world a better place, but to make money. However they can make that money the easiest is the best path, and it's their responsibility to their stockholders to follow that path. Everything else is just a bonus. 2. CF, in my opinion, is at the point at which a "general HTML developer" can create a viable application, with just a little bit of knowledge. That's been one of the greatest strengths of CF since its creation. It doesn't require significant programming experience to get started. Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ voice: (202) 797-5496 fax: (202) 797-5444 ~~ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
RE: No caching
> Turn trusted cache off in the ColdFusion Administrator, and > restart your ColdFusion Service. Just as a helpful hint, you don't have to restart CF after turning Trusted Cache on or off. Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ voice: (202) 797-5496 fax: (202) 797-5444 ~~ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
RE: FAQ POSTED: New CF5 Partner Hosting License
> also check out dynamo at www.atg.com. While I've not been involved in a project with Dynamo, I would have to ask whether it and CF are actually aimed at the same market as Seva was implying with the others. ATG, BEA and IBM solutions all have an excellent reputations and are very capable (more appropriate for some projects than CF) but the characterization that was being portrayed of Macromedias position in the marketplace and what they are doing struck me as driven more by anger/dissapointment over pricing changes than reality of the marketplace. Ken ~~ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
RE: New CF5 Partner Hosting License
> i don't think figleaf is a CF-only shop. > > autobytel is more or less a CF-only shop (i worked there for > a year and a half) but they're not in the business of hosting > applications for 3rd parties. > > my guess is this *probably* doesn't adversely affect the core > business of either. No, the new CF 5 hosting licensing doesn't affect Fig Leaf in the least. We don't do hosting, and our applications end up being deployed on dedicated servers owned or leased by our clients at the hosting facilities of their choice. The cost of application server software ends up being a very small item in the total cost of developing, deploying and maintaining an enterprise application. And, not to make the very vocal portion of folks who have very strong negative opinions about this even angrier, the constant increase of the price of CF, as it continues to include new features for application development, isn't a bad thing for us. At this point, it looks like CF 5 will ship with Macromedia Generator 2 Enterprise Edition "in-the-box". Since quite a few of our applications use both CF and Generator already (currently requiring separate installations and separate licensing), this is probably a good thing. As I see it, there simply isn't much other direction for CF to go except up (in feature-set and price). Comparisons with PHP and ASP are kind of silly, as neither of those products has a relationship to a vendor in the traditional sense. PHP is simply free, with no vendor at all, and ASP is even worse - a product that, despite having a vendor, doesn't exist to make money at all! ASP is just a way for Microsoft to sell more copies of NT/2K and Visual Studio. Macromedia doesn't exist in this sort of happy unreality - they've got a decent product in a pretty competitive environment, and they feel (rightly or wrongly) that their product's survival rests with the ability to compete at the high end, since the low-end products are free. Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ voice: (202) 797-5496 fax: (202) 797-5444 ~~ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
Re: FAQ POSTED: New CF5 Partner Hosting License
> As a consumer, yes, I'd be willing to pay $5 or $10 more per month in order > NOT to have to tie up my hosting provider's tech support lines with "It's > down again". I just went through a very frustrating situation with a CF > Host where they were trying their hardest to fix the problem and the server > didn't want to act nice. Unfortunately for Macromedia, this is NOT the right time to introduce a substantial price hike for hosting providers. Many are totally fed up with the problems they've had with CF. Even those that haven't had problems cross their fingers and wonder what they've done right. Trying to convince these providers that CF will magically become faster and more stable, while at the same time asking them to bend over and take it, is going to be marketing feat that I'd like see MM pull off. I'd be very wary of how your hosting company is going receive this wonderful news. My guess it that they'll be: 1. Staying at CF 4.5 and fading out CF services. After CF 5 has been out for a few months, certainly once CF 5.5 or CF 6 comes out, advertising CF 4.5 hosting would be suicidal, like advertising that your servers run NT 3.5. 2. Raising hosting prices AND packing more sites onto shared servers. This is good news for consumers? Jim ~~ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
RE: access odbc error
> I have an access 2000 database ... > ... > Everything was working fine until a couple of weeks ago > when we started getting (intermittently) the below error ... > > Error Diagnostic Information > ODBC Error Code = S1001 (Memory allocation error) > [Microsoft][ODBC Microsoft Access Driver] Not enough space on > temporary disk. Are you sure you have enough free space on the disk drive when this runs? Your ISP should be able to audit that for you, if necessary. Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ voice: (202) 797-5496 fax: (202) 797-5444 ~~ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
RE: New CF5 Partner Hosting License
My point was that the way I read it, you can run as many apps as you want on a CFPro 5 box, as long as you developed them. Did I read the FAQ wrong? best, paul At 02:13 PM 4/28/01 -0400, you wrote: >On 4/28/01, Paul Smith penned: > >Perhaps I didn't read things quite correctly, but doesn't this development > >work in favor of those small developers who put a box somewhere and go into > >the business hosting the apps they develop? > >I am basically such a developer. I may have 2 clients with access to >my box who even know what ColdFusion is, other than what I tell them. >So I'm fine with Pro rather than Enterprise. So you'd have to explain >to me how spending $6,000 for functionality I don't require when the >functionality I do require is available for $1,100 will work in my >favor. ~~ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
RE: New CF5 Partner Hosting License
> Anyone interested in writing a new SAMS book: Teach your > coldfusion developers PHP in 5 hours? No - because it'd be too hard. On the other hand, you could easily write a book teaching PHP developers CF in 5 hours. That's why CF is worth paying for, I suppose. Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ voice: (202) 797-5496 fax: (202) 797-5444 ~~ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
Re: Hosting Service Provider Edition Clarification
That might do something, but I really think MM does not care. - Original Message - From: "Wayne Putterill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2001 12:19 PM Subject: Re: Hosting Service Provider Edition Clarification > > - Original Message - > From: "Aaron Rouse" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2001 5:16 PM > Subject: Re: Hosting Service Provider Edition Clarification > > > > True, but also sounds like less CF work for people like me. The people > that > > I do small sites for, already do not want to pay a premium for CF and > > if/when the pricing goes up they will not pay for it period. Just means > I > > get to code their sites in something else, personally I would prefer not > to, > > but I also want to bring in a pay check. > > > > I doubt my day job is going to get rid of CF, however if they have to pay > a > > great deal more for the licensing I could easily see them just staying > with > > the current version of CF that they are running on all of their servers > and > > then slowly getting sites redone in ASP since we already do ASP there. > > Thats the big problem now, I have been happy to use CF for the past three > years in building small sites as I believed it had a real future ahead of > it. It seems that MM are abandoning the small developer in favour of chasing > the enterprise market - my customers are never going to be able to justify > that sort of expense on a server. So the next contract I get I will have to > think about using ASP, or more likely PHP, simply because they seem to have > a future in the markets I deal in. > > Maybe we should organise a symbolic demonstration to show MM our feelings on > this matter - perhaps if nobody posts to the list for a day they may wake up > and realise what they are doing. > > > - Original Message - > > From: "Ken Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2001 10:37 AM > > Subject: RE: Hosting Service Provider Edition Clarification > > > > > > > > What I am curious about is after this "scare" is over, just how many > > > > developers have decided to move on to another language. > > > > > > > > > > > > Sounds like more work for those of us "left behind". :) > > > > > > > > > Ken > > > > > > > > > ~~ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
Re: FAQ POSTED: New CF5 Partner Hosting License
How much does this cost? I coldn't find it on their web site. Thanks, Howie Hamlin - inFusion Project Manager On-Line Data Solutions, Inc. www.CoolFusion.com 631-737-4668 x101 inFusion Mail Server (iMS) - The Intelligent Mail Server - Original Message - From: "Dylan Bromby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2001 3:05 PM Subject: RE: FAQ POSTED: New CF5 Partner Hosting License > also check out dynamo at www.atg.com. > ~~ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
Re: New CF5 Partner Hosting License
- Original Message - From: "Bud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2001 12:13 PM Subject: RE: New CF5 Partner Hosting License > On 4/28/01, Paul Smith penned: > >Perhaps I didn't read things quite correctly, but doesn't this development > >work in favor of those small developers who put a box somewhere and go into > >the business hosting the apps they develop? > > I am basically such a developer. I may have 2 clients with access to > my box who even know what ColdFusion is, other than what I tell them. > So I'm fine with Pro rather than Enterprise. So you'd have to explain > to me how spending $6,000 for functionality I don't require when the > functionality I do require is available for $1,100 will work in my > favor. > > > > >And doesn't this development also mean the financial barriers have been > >raised for a customer to transfer their CF app to a non-single-developer > >hosting provider? > > The problem for me is not my existing clients. Everything I've built > to date is built to run on 4.0/4.5. I'll keep them on a box with 4.5. > But I won't be able to update that 4.5 to 5.x and take advantage of > the new benefits for future sites. And when I fill up my current box > and need a new box, then what if 4.5 isn't available? I'm not going > to spend $6,000 because I'd have to raise hosting prices on that box > and the average 45 per month I charge to host CF sites now is right > at the upper limit of what an end user will pay that doesn't > understand the technology or that doesn't have a very profitable > website. > > So, I get out of the dynamic application hosting business or I take > advantage of a free technology. Bud, You're in absolutely the worst possible position for this new development in creative pricing, and I know of _many_ developers hosting their clients' sites who are in the same position. Who can afford $6000 spread out over 30 or 40 web sites? Jim ~~ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
RE: No caching
My error Thanks. - Chris -Original Message- From: Dave Watts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2001 2:26 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: No caching > Turn trusted cache off in the ColdFusion Administrator, and > restart your ColdFusion Service. Just as a helpful hint, you don't have to restart CF after turning Trusted Cache on or off. Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ voice: (202) 797-5496 fax: (202) 797-5444 ~~ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
RE: COM/MTS NT/2000 AND CF 4 .vs CF 5
> ... The object kinda works. When first called, I get the
> " Object variable or With block variable not set " error.
> If you hit reload, same problem. But if you wait a few
> minutes, and then hit reload, it works. I really don't
> know where to turn, and since it works in VB/ASP, I can't
> call Microsoft.
> ...
> The ASP code that calls the function is simple too, and never fails:
> <%
> set oObj = server.createobject("UDB_Contact.Business")
> strResult = oObj.add(strSource)
> %>
>
> The CF code should work the same way, or so I thought:
>CLASS="UDB_Contact.Business">
> ACTION="CREATE">
>
The code looks the same to me, too. Here are some things you might try.
Which line is causing the error, the CFOBJECT or the method call in line 2?
If it's the second, then it's just taking an inordinately long time to
instantiate the object for some reason. You could potentially take that to
MS as a problem, even though it works from ASP - if you have MS support, my
experience with them has been pretty good, even when using their products
with other products like CF (after all, that's how assimilation works!).
You might try writing a WSC wrapper object which calls your object. The code
for that would be script (VB or JScript). You can generate one of these very
easily using the Windows Script Component Wizard, available as a download
from the MS Scripting site.
Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
http://www.figleaf.com/
voice: (202) 797-5496
fax: (202) 797-5444
~~
Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at
http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
Re: New CF5 Partner Hosting License
> > You have to remember, MM wants to make money, not necessarily > > provide a better development environment for us. This can be > > achieved by bringing CF down to the point a general HTML > > developer can create a viable application. > > Two points: > > 1. You can take out "MM" from the above sentence, and replace it with any > publicly-held company. That's the job of companies. Not to "provide a better > development environment", not to make the world a better place, but to make > money. However they can make that money the easiest is the best path, and > it's their responsibility to their stockholders to follow that path. > Everything else is just a bonus. More than a few companies have priced themselves out their own market If they lose CF, considering that they picked up Allaire for a song, I suppose they'll survive. > 2. CF, in my opinion, is at the point at which a "general HTML developer" > can create a viable application, with just a little bit of knowledge. That's > been one of the greatest strengths of CF since its creation. It doesn't > require significant programming experience to get started. That "general HTML developer" is not one likely to be working on $30k sites to be hosted on their own servers. While CF has always appealed to this developer, Macromedia now wants to pull the rug out from under him. I don't get it. Jim ~~ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
Re: New CF5 Partner Hosting License
- Original Message - From: "Dave Watts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2001 1:30 PM Subject: RE: New CF5 Partner Hosting License > > i don't think figleaf is a CF-only shop. > > > > autobytel is more or less a CF-only shop (i worked there for > > a year and a half) but they're not in the business of hosting > > applications for 3rd parties. > > > > my guess is this *probably* doesn't adversely affect the core > > business of either. > > No, the new CF 5 hosting licensing doesn't affect Fig Leaf in the least. We > don't do hosting, and our applications end up being deployed on dedicated > servers owned or leased by our clients at the hosting facilities of their > choice. The cost of application server software ends up being a very small > item in the total cost of developing, deploying and maintaining an > enterprise application. > > And, not to make the very vocal portion of folks who have very strong > negative opinions about this even angrier, the constant increase of the > price of CF, as it continues to include new features for application > development, isn't a bad thing for us. At this point, it looks like CF 5 > will ship with Macromedia Generator 2 Enterprise Edition "in-the-box". Since > quite a few of our applications use both CF and Generator already (currently > requiring separate installations and separate licensing), this is probably a > good thing. > > As I see it, there simply isn't much other direction for CF to go except up > (in feature-set and price). Comparisons with PHP and ASP are kind of silly, > as neither of those products has a relationship to a vendor in the > traditional sense. PHP is simply free, with no vendor at all, and ASP is > even worse - a product that, despite having a vendor, doesn't exist to make > money at all! ASP is just a way for Microsoft to sell more copies of NT/2K > and Visual Studio. Macromedia doesn't exist in this sort of happy unreality > - they've got a decent product in a pretty competitive environment, and they > feel (rightly or wrongly) that their product's survival rests with the > ability to compete at the high end, since the low-end products are free. > > Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software > http://www.figleaf.com/ > voice: (202) 797-5496 > fax: (202) 797-5444 So, you're saying Macromedia is _purposely_ trying to get out of being an application server for low-end, shared hosting? And they're doing this by making it prohibitively expensive for hosting providers. I think you're onto something. Jim ~~ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
RE: FAQ POSTED: New CF5 Partner Hosting License
it's expensive. it's in the same realm as weblogic. dynamo is a VERY high-end application server. like most of these kinds of products, you have to call someone to get pricing. -Original Message- From: Howie Hamlin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2001 12:56 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: FAQ POSTED: New CF5 Partner Hosting License How much does this cost? I coldn't find it on their web site. Thanks, Howie Hamlin - inFusion Project Manager On-Line Data Solutions, Inc. www.CoolFusion.com 631-737-4668 x101 inFusion Mail Server (iMS) - The Intelligent Mail Server - Original Message - From: "Dylan Bromby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2001 3:05 PM Subject: RE: FAQ POSTED: New CF5 Partner Hosting License > also check out dynamo at www.atg.com. > ~~ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
Re: New CF5 Partner Hosting License
- Original Message - From: "Jim McAtee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2001 9:10 PM > > > So, you're saying Macromedia is _purposely_ trying to get out of being an > application server for low-end, shared hosting? And they're doing this by > making it prohibitively expensive for hosting providers. I think you're > onto something. Macromedia would be exceptionally unwise to fragment the market like that. MM do not have a monopoly on hosting middleware as we have been discussing, and thereasons that they have been able to charge a price when most other middleware are free, are not compelling enough to guarantee them market position in the future - especially with the power of M$ and ASP.Net which will be free to host, and the advancing PHP, and then there is XML of course and others. As I keep saying - look what happened to Netscape Navigator vis a vis Internet Explorer - Netscape's entire business model collapsed it seems because IE was bundled and free. The same applies to CF v ASP and to a lesser extent PHP. As I also keep saying - with apologies for being repetitive - MM would do much better to stay with their central business model as a producer of Web application development and productivity software, and make CF server free. By doing that it will be be much more widely deployed, will become a standard hosting option alongside ASP, PHP etc.. and with orders of magnitudes more developers resulting, and in turn purchasing Macromedia's development tools. MM's ownership of CF will give them a commanding position in the CF development market which people will pay for. If developers leave CF for ASP or PHP - they will never go back to CF. MM should be securing the future of CF as a vehicle to sell development tools, rather than hastening its demise. Adrian Cooper. ~~ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
Re: FAQ POSTED: New CF5 Partner Hosting License
Thanks - that's what I figured. There's always Orion which, I think, has a similar feature set... Regards, Howie - Original Message - From: "Dylan Bromby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2001 4:21 PM Subject: RE: FAQ POSTED: New CF5 Partner Hosting License > it's expensive. it's in the same realm as weblogic. dynamo is a VERY > high-end application server. like most of these kinds of products, you have > to call someone to get pricing. > > -Original Message- > From: Howie Hamlin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2001 12:56 PM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: Re: FAQ POSTED: New CF5 Partner Hosting License > > > How much does this cost? I coldn't find it on their web site. > > Thanks, > > Howie Hamlin - inFusion Project Manager > On-Line Data Solutions, Inc. > www.CoolFusion.com > 631-737-4668 x101 > inFusion Mail Server (iMS) - The Intelligent Mail Server > > - Original Message - > From: "Dylan Bromby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2001 3:05 PM > Subject: RE: FAQ POSTED: New CF5 Partner Hosting License > > > > also check out dynamo at www.atg.com. > > > > ~~ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
RE: FAQ POSTED: New CF5 Partner Hosting License
> it's expensive. it's in the same realm as weblogic. dynamo is > a VERY high-end application server. like most of these kinds of > products, you have to call someone to get pricing. and if you have to ask, you can't afford it. Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ voice: (202) 797-5496 fax: (202) 797-5444 ~~ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
Re: Getting current page name.
I got it to work using #caller.SCRIPT_NAME#. Works perfect now. HTnaks for all the help guys. - Original Message - From: "Jeffry Houser" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2001 6:17 PM Subject: Re: Getting current page name. > >I don't think you need any quotes at all. > > "http://www.prolookink.com/";#cgi.SCRIPT_NAME#"" > > If this is in an HREF, then it'll ignore everything after the first > second quote. Just try this (no quotes): > > http://www.prolookink.com/#cgi.SCRIPT_NAME# > >Of, if this is in a CFSET, try something like this: > > http://www.prolookink.com/"; & #cgi.SCRIPT_NAME#> > #myvariable# > >(Is this helping?) > > > > At 02:03 PM 04/28/2001 -0400, you wrote: > >Here is the snippet of code. > > > >"http://www.prolookink.com/";#cgi.SCRIPT_NAME#"" > > > >what I need is the calling page name, but for some reason it does not seem > >to be working. Do I need to use single quotes around the CFOUTPUT tags? > >- Original Message - > >From: "Jeffry Houser" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2001 4:33 PM > >Subject: Re: Getting current page name. > > > > > > > At 01:20 PM 04/28/2001 -0400, you wrote: > > > >I am writing a custom tag and I need to get the url of the page calling > > > >the tag to complete the scripting in the custom tag. > > > > > >Depends how much of the URL you want. You could pass the template name > > > as a parameter, hard coded. > > >If you want the full URL, you could append together these two CGI > >variables: > > > > > > #cgi.HTTP_HOST# & "/" & #cgi.SCRIPT_NAME# > > > > > > http_host will give you just the domain name, and script_name will > > > give you the name/directory of the current template. > > > > > > > > > >Can anyone provide a simple way of achiving this? CF server 4.5. Thank > >you. > > > > > > > >Jeff Davis > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ~~ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
RE: New CF5 Partner Hosting License
> So, you're saying Macromedia is _purposely_ trying to get out > of being an application server for low-end, shared hosting? And > they're doing this by making it prohibitively expensive for > hosting providers. I think you're onto something. No, I don't think they're purposely trying to get out of anything. I think they're pursuing the share of the market that makes the most sense for them to gain, from their perspective. On the other hand, I wouldn't be surprised if they spent a disproportionate amount supporting ISPs' problems, with very little visible return. The historical direction of CF from version 3 onward has been aimed at the enterprise as best Allaire could, with the addition of shared memory, caching functionality, LDAP and X.500 security integration, and server clustering. It was never really intended for use in a shared-server environment: - there's only one server instance in memory, - it's always favored performance over stability, which is fine for dedicated applications, but not so good when any Joe can run code on a given box for a $50/year fee - individual applications can't have performance constraints placed on them Furthermore, had Allaire spent any time addressing those points, the core product would probably have suffered as a result. Now, although Allaire hadn't made significantly more per unit selling CF to ISPs as opposed to others, I'll bet they've had to field more support calls as a result of those ISP sales, when someone wrote code without locks, or with infinite loops, or some other stupid server-crashing trick. Consider this: what's one of the more noticeable additions to CF 5 Enterprise? All of the "Harvest" components, which should significantly lower the costs for managing multiple applications per server. If they're going to release something which lowers the ISP's cost of business, why shouldn't MM feel entitled to a piece of that, especially given the amount of programming effort that it entailed? Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ voice: (202) 797-5496 fax: (202) 797-5444 ~~ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
RE: New CF5 Partner Hosting License
> As I keep saying - look what happened to Netscape Navigator > vis a vis Internet Explorer - Netscape's entire business model > collapsed it seems because IE was bundled and free. The same > applies to CF v ASP and to a lesser extent PHP. I'm not sure what lesson can be drawn from this. CF isn't free, because some company, with employees and stockholders, makes it. ASP isn't free, in any meaningful sense, either - just try to download a version for the platform of your choice, if it isn't Windows. PHP is free because it doesn't come from a company, and there are no employees and stockholders to satisfy. There's also no need for the PHP development team to directly satisfy the PHP user community, although they may certainly want to, given the free time and resources. But if they don't, none of them will be out of a job, will they. So, are you suggesting that the Allaire arm of MM should: 1. discharge everybody providing development and tech support services for CF, 2. not pay any of those people, 3. fund further development and support from the sales of their ubiquitous desktop OS (oh, wait a second...) None of those sound too likely to me. Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ voice: (202) 797-5496 fax: (202) 797-5444 ~~ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
RE: SQL2000 server not recognized by CF 4.5
> Has anyone heard if SQL2000 is actually slower than SQL 7.0? There's been some studies that have potentially indicated this, when run on NT 4. I suspect that SQL 2000 will probably run better with larger datasets on Windows 2000, though. Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ voice: (202) 797-5496 fax: (202) 797-5444 ~~ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
CF5 Hosting License - My Thoughts...
FWIW, MM.. are you listening? I think (and hope - for your sake) you are. The people speaking on this list are the majority of "hard-core" developers and hosting companies using your newly-gained product. The theory begun by JJ and Jeremy a while ago, I believe, still holds true today. The product need not be sanctioned behind a licensing wall that makes it too expensive for the average company to utilize. Keep it cost effective, and you'll get them hooked.. and the third-level markets will give rise to new found profits. At the VERY least, those of us who own and this product now should be given the opportunity to upgrade to this new licensing port for a VERY cheap cost. We have been the advocates for this product since it's inception and have stuck by it, through some of the toughest parts of it's evolution. My thought is that this new licensing model is a mistake. It's just my opinion, and comes with a double-your-money-back guarantee. However, the reality is that if you're looking for R&D money to get the worms out of CF, and to make it a more profitable product, the LAST people you want to penalize are your current and loyal followers. While I completely believe in CF, and find it to be the most valuable tool in my arsenal of talents, I also have to make a living. Attempting to amortize $5000+ over a CPU (or two) is simply going to price you out of our realm, forcing our company (and I fear others) into a competition game of "who has the best development platform for the least cost." (I.e., how can we still build awesome websites and make a profit hosting them as well?) If CF becomes this costly to those of us who use it the most, you're going to find that your profits will dwindle.. not rise. My suggestion... Talk to us. Ask us how we can help you to make CF more profitable. Bring the (obvious) issue into the forground, and let's discuss it. Let's see what we can do to make CF a powerhouse of profit for you, and one-helluva product for us to use and be proud of. In turn, we will give you a plethora and wealth of ideas and suggestions that just may help you tap into new markets you didn't even think you had. Otherwise, cut your losses and put CF into open source. Either way, the community will go on. And, no doubt, new markets will emerge from the need of third-party and pre-packaged code that we will buy, using the platform we know best... especially if it's a cost effective set of solutions. But don't make the mistake of pricing yourself into oblivion. You can see how many people on this list are already looking for other solutions. Count them, and multiply by $5000 (or even $1 if you were thinking they would buy the licensing for 2 machines or more). Is it still a good move? What if that count rises to 100, or 1000? Does it STILL make financial sense? Talk to us, guys. We're here to help make this work.. and to help MM merge successfully into this market. (I think I speak for many of us.. maybe not. If I'm wrong, I'm sure I'll hear about it shortly.) If you choose not to do so, I fear that the first move you're making (raising the cost of doing business with you to a level that many of us cannot justify) may just leave too sour a taste in our mouths to continue down that path. Just my HO.. Lee Fuller Chief Technical Officer PrimeDNA Corp / AAA Web Hosting Corp "We ARE the net." ~~ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
RE: New CF5 Partner Hosting License
> > 2. CF, in my opinion, is at the point at which a "general > > HTML developer" can create a viable application, with just > > a little bit of knowledge. That's been one of the greatest > > strengths of CF since its creation. It doesn't require > > significant programming experience to get started. > > That "general HTML developer" is not one likely to be working > on $30k sites to be hosted on their own servers. While CF has > always appealed to this developer, Macromedia now wants to pull > the rug out from under him. I don't get it. That "general HTML developer" might just be someone within a large organization who's responsible for a little section of the corporate intranet, though. In my experience, that's really been the core of CF's success. As far as I can tell, the vast majority of CF work is done completely away from the public eye, by people without much development experience. In my opinion, this has been the traditional target market for CF - the departmental/workgroup level within the larger enterprise. Unfortunately, given the relative glut of experienced developers and the continuing movement to centralize intranet data and standardize products used within the enterprise, CF has to pursue the enterprise-level products themselves. If MM doesn't do this, there simply won't be enough of a market to support CF, period. The CF advantage remains the ability to take someone with little development experience and make them productive quickly, which its competitors on the high end (BEA WebLogic, etc) will simply never have. Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ voice: (202) 797-5496 fax: (202) 797-5444 ~~ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
Re: New CF5 Partner Hosting License
- Original Message - From: "Dave Watts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2001 9:51 PM > > I'm not sure what lesson can be drawn from this. CF isn't free, because some > company, with employees and stockholders, makes it. ASP isn't free, in any > meaningful sense, either - just try to download a version for the platform > of your choice, if it isn't Windows. Well - it_is_Windows we are talking about for the most part here. Some people do Linux, but there again so does Apache and PHP. PHP is free because it doesn't come > from a company, and there are no employees and stockholders to satisfy. That is of no importance to developers and application hosters. Linux is fundamentally free, but is now offered pre-installed by the likes of Dell, Compaq and IBM such is its importance. > > So, are you suggesting that the Allaire arm of MM should: > > 1. discharge everybody providing development and tech support services for > CF, > 2. not pay any of those people, > 3. fund further development and support from the sales of their ubiquitous > desktop OS (oh, wait a second...) With respect - you misunderstand what I am saying here. I am not suggesting they cease to develop or support CF at all - on the contrary - what I am saying is that they should re-position it away from a profit center to a marketing center. In other words - they should concentrate on getting CF as widely deployed as possible, so that they can use their inside knowledge of the product, and their other expertise, to sell developers the ultimate CF development and productivity tools at a premium price - it is all down to positioning. Or to put it another way - if CF was free and offered as a standard hosting option by_every_hosting service provider, there might be hundred of times more developers for it as a result, and if UltraDev was the definitive development environment they could sell hundreds of times more copies of UltraDev as a direct result - it is called creating a market or creating market demand. It certainly does not diminish the value of CF or those people working on it. The alternative route, which they appear to be embarking on, is to reduce the deployment of CF, which will reduce the demand for Studio and UltraDev etc. and threaten the very future of CF itself, leaving MM as a producer of development tools for ASP and PHP along with the others. Which makes the most commercial sense to you? Adrian Cooper. ~~ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
RE: New CF5 Partner Hosting License
> > PHP is free because it doesn't come from a company, and > > there are no employees and stockholders to satisfy. > > That is of no importance to developers and application > hosters. Linux is fundamentally free, but is now offered > pre-installed by the likes of Dell, Compaq and IBM such is > its importance. It may be of no importance to application hosters (if by that you mean essentially ISPs who will host whatever they can host as cheaply as possible), but I'd argue that developers, and people using applications, may care very much about who to call when they have trouble. More to the point, if you're concerned about the future of CF, you probably think that CF is a better product than PHP. Why is that? What makes it a better product? Could it be, perhaps, that there are people out there whose job it is to improve that product faster than other products get improved? On the enterprise side of things, is anyone using PHP for enterprise-wide applications? If not, why not? > With respect - you misunderstand what I am saying here. > > I am not suggesting they cease to develop or support CF at > all - on the contrary - what I am saying is that they should > re-position it away from a profit center to a marketing center. > In other words - they should concentrate on getting CF as widely > deployed as possible, so that they can use their inside knowledge > of the product, and their other expertise, to sell developers the > ultimate CF development and productivity tools at a premium price > - it is all down to positioning. No disrespect intended, but I think I understand perfectly what you're saying. However, I disagree. It is not all down to positioning. It is all down to making a return on investment. Your suggestion smacks of the general irrationality of the New Economy market. I think otherwise. If the product is worth using, it's worth selling. If it can't survive as a salable product, it's not worth using as a shill to get us to buy other things. Companies like Microsoft can do that and survive - companies like Netscape (from your previous example) can't. > Or to put it another way - if CF was free and offered as a > standard hosting option by_every_hosting service provider, > there might be hundred of times more developers for it as a > result, and if UltraDev was the definitive development > environment they could sell hundreds of times more copies of > UltraDev as a direct result - it is called creating a market > or creating market demand. It certainly does not diminish the > value of CF or those people working on it. Given that UltraDev can generate CF, ASP and JSP code, why should MM care then? It seems that there's likely to be a relatively inelastic demand for web development in the future, now that the "fad" part is over. There are only so many editors that can be sold. Since MM's design tools already cater to multiple platforms (and in fact have generally been popular for those other platforms), why shouldn't CF stand on its own weight? Finally, I'd be curious what percentage of web (internet/intranet) development money comes from ISP shared-server application development and hosting. My guess is that it's pretty small, but that's just my uneducated guess. Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ voice: (202) 797-5496 fax: (202) 797-5444 ~~ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
RE: Storing structures in a DB
> > as for normalizing; with a globally designed DB - it is not > > necessary; the logic is ported into the App. > > Well, sorry to bore people with this now slightly OT thread, > but "there's the rub" - by storing all the data in one table > you have thrown away all the inherent business-modelling > capability of a relational database and made far *more* > work for the developers, not less. Not only that, > but you lose the ability of the DB design to serve as > a central authoritative design document describing the > enterprise rules. Not to mention performance and the fact > that the database is now practically un-optimisable by the > DBMS and un-tunable by the DBA. This can't be repeated enough. There's a reason we all pay huge sums of money to Oracle, Sybase and so forth - relational databases work very well, if used correctly. Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ voice: (202) 797-5496 fax: (202) 797-5444 ~~ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
RE: Storing structures in a DB
On the topic of relational tables: If I create a relational DB structure but do not define the relationship at the database level, is there a loss in performance when my application requests data from two tables based on the relationship. I guess what I'm asking is do you need to define the relationship at the DB level? Brook At 06:00 PM 28/04/01 -0400, you wrote: > > > as for normalizing; with a globally designed DB - it is not > > > necessary; the logic is ported into the App. > > > > Well, sorry to bore people with this now slightly OT thread, > > but "there's the rub" - by storing all the data in one table > > you have thrown away all the inherent business-modelling > > capability of a relational database and made far *more* > > work for the developers, not less. Not only that, > > but you lose the ability of the DB design to serve as > > a central authoritative design document describing the > > enterprise rules. Not to mention performance and the fact > > that the database is now practically un-optimisable by the > > DBMS and un-tunable by the DBA. > >This can't be repeated enough. There's a reason we all pay huge sums of >money to Oracle, Sybase and so forth - relational databases work very well, >if used correctly. > >Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software >http://www.figleaf.com/ >voice: (202) 797-5496 >fax: (202) 797-5444 > > > ~~ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
RE: slightly OT: html formatted e-mails
> Writing for non-html-support email programs are like writing > html for netscape > > the war is over my friends.. Uh, maybe so, but I suspect that for a while you might feel like one of the poor saps who had to convince fanatic Japanese soldiers on deserted islands - still in the trees, with their rifles - that the war was over. I, for one, use HTML formatting as an indicator that it's junk. Off it goes, into the bitbucket. I suspect that people who use alternative devices, like the very popular Blackberry handhelds, don't like HTML mail. I wouldn't be surprised if, just like with this list, sysadmins of company mail servers don't simply disable HTML mail at the door. As a general rule, I'd be less inclined to purchase a product from a company which didn't allow me to receive plain-text email. I suspect that this is a common feeling, and that while you may get better visible results using HTML email, you probably can't measure the less visible results of people saying "screw so-and-so and their products". Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ voice: (202) 797-5496 fax: (202) 797-5444 ~~ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
RE: Storing structures in a DB
> If I create a relational DB structure but do not define the > relationship at the database level, is there a loss in performance > when my application requests data from two tables based on the > relationship. I guess what I'm asking is do you need to define > the relationship at the DB level? You won't necessarily lose performance, but you still want to declare the relationship in the DB. That's what the DB is for! Imagine that you treat two tables as related in your app, but they're not related in the DB, and in one location in your app you forget to treat the two tables as related. That won't be very good at all. Again, this is one of the reasons why we pay good money for relational databases. Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ voice: (202) 797-5496 fax: (202) 797-5444 ~~ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
Re: Sending mail with coldfusion
- Original Message - From: "Kurt Ward" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2001 12:59 PM > There are several other issues with CFMAIL that led us to abandon it (such > as > strict RFC compliant email servers like QMail, etc.). If you are on a Win32 > setup, you may want to look at the AspMail COM object from > www.serverobjects.com > > This component is heavy duty with a list of heavy hitters using it. Some of > I think it sells for $50. Someone has also written a custom tag for an easy > interface to it. Where can one obtain this ASPMail interface custom tag please? Thanks. Adrian Cooper. ~~ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
RE: New CF5 Partner Hosting License
i've been creating web-based apps since january 1996 and i started with coldfusion 1.0 when it came on floppies with website 1.0 from o'reilly. i remember when CF was US$995. it's increased 5-6 fold in price since then. i've never had a problem convincing clients to pay for it and making enough margin to own my own licenses for my own applications. maybe the market just doesn't need thousands and thousands of CF developers regardless of how many people want to be one, or how many people believe they "deserve" to be successful because they work hard. this new licensing doesn't affect me or my clients whatsoever now that i've read the FAQ. but if the price of CF is increased for my uses then i'll pay it. i'll echo dave's point: these companies are in business to make a profit, not break even. and i'll carry that one step further and say that's true for the small, medium, and large business represented on this list. if the increase in cost drives you out of the market, i hate to sound cold, but get used to it. price increases are part of business. and even though i can't think of one software package i use that's gotten cheaper since i started 5+ years ago, i can also say that my billing rates have increased much more significantly than my cost of doing business. if i were in this to pay my bills and scrape by, i might as well be flipping burgers. -Original Message- From: Dave Watts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2001 2:49 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: New CF5 Partner Hosting License > > PHP is free because it doesn't come from a company, and > > there are no employees and stockholders to satisfy. > > That is of no importance to developers and application > hosters. Linux is fundamentally free, but is now offered > pre-installed by the likes of Dell, Compaq and IBM such is > its importance. It may be of no importance to application hosters (if by that you mean essentially ISPs who will host whatever they can host as cheaply as possible), but I'd argue that developers, and people using applications, may care very much about who to call when they have trouble. More to the point, if you're concerned about the future of CF, you probably think that CF is a better product than PHP. Why is that? What makes it a better product? Could it be, perhaps, that there are people out there whose job it is to improve that product faster than other products get improved? On the enterprise side of things, is anyone using PHP for enterprise-wide applications? If not, why not? > With respect - you misunderstand what I am saying here. > > I am not suggesting they cease to develop or support CF at > all - on the contrary - what I am saying is that they should > re-position it away from a profit center to a marketing center. > In other words - they should concentrate on getting CF as widely > deployed as possible, so that they can use their inside knowledge > of the product, and their other expertise, to sell developers the > ultimate CF development and productivity tools at a premium price > - it is all down to positioning. No disrespect intended, but I think I understand perfectly what you're saying. However, I disagree. It is not all down to positioning. It is all down to making a return on investment. Your suggestion smacks of the general irrationality of the New Economy market. I think otherwise. If the product is worth using, it's worth selling. If it can't survive as a salable product, it's not worth using as a shill to get us to buy other things. Companies like Microsoft can do that and survive - companies like Netscape (from your previous example) can't. > Or to put it another way - if CF was free and offered as a > standard hosting option by_every_hosting service provider, > there might be hundred of times more developers for it as a > result, and if UltraDev was the definitive development > environment they could sell hundreds of times more copies of > UltraDev as a direct result - it is called creating a market > or creating market demand. It certainly does not diminish the > value of CF or those people working on it. Given that UltraDev can generate CF, ASP and JSP code, why should MM care then? It seems that there's likely to be a relatively inelastic demand for web development in the future, now that the "fad" part is over. There are only so many editors that can be sold. Since MM's design tools already cater to multiple platforms (and in fact have generally been popular for those other platforms), why shouldn't CF stand on its own weight? Finally, I'd be curious what percentage of web (internet/intranet) development money comes from ISP shared-server application development and hosting. My guess is that it's pretty small, but that's just my uneducated guess. Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ voice: (202) 797-5496 fax: (202) 797-5444 ~~ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official
Re: New CF5 Partner Hosting License
- Original Message - From: "Dave Watts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2001 10:48 PM > > It may be of no importance to application hosters (if by that you mean > essentially ISPs who will host whatever they can host as cheaply as > possible), but I'd argue that developers, and people using applications, may > care very much about who to call when they have trouble. What I mean specifically, is that what really matters is productivity and cost effectiveness. In the case of ASP and PHP free is about as cost effective as it gets. > > More to the point, if you're concerned about the future of CF, you probably > think that CF is a better product than PHP. Why is that? What makes it a > better product? Could it be, perhaps, that there are people out there whose > job it is to improve that product faster than other products get improved? I think we all know the answer to that - in terms of development speed i.e. productivity, CF is the best tool out there. I guess that contradicts my above statement to a point - but it it horses for courses - what price productivity? > > On the enterprise side of things, is anyone using PHP for enterprise-wide > applications? If not, why not? Yet. Ask the same question of ASP and in particular intentions for ASP.NET. > > No disrespect intended, but I think I understand perfectly what you're > saying. However, I disagree. It is not all down to positioning. It is all > down to making a return on investment. Which in turn is down to positioning. You can have the best product inthe world, at apremium price - but if no one purchases it you make 100% of nothing. ROI is relative to all of the factors involved - not just one dynamic - price in this case. Your suggestion smacks of the general > irrationality of the New Economy market. I think otherwise. If the product > is worth using, it's worth selling. Really - don't you think ASP is worth using? Internet Explorer? Outlook Express? If it can't survive as a salable > product, it's not worth using as a shill to get us to buy other things. > Companies like Microsoft can do that and survive - companies like Netscape > (from your previous example) can't. I disagree :-) > > Given that UltraDev can generate CF, ASP and JSP code, why should MM care > then? Why indeed? But as we have already said - CF could and should be the development product of choice, and MM are in the best position to capitalise on that by way of development tools. > > It seems that there's likely to be a relatively inelastic demand for web > development in the future, now that the "fad" part is over. There are only > so many editors that can be sold. Since MM's design tools already cater to > multiple platforms (and in fact have generally been popular for those other > platforms), why shouldn't CF stand on its own weight? Because although CF is better, it is not better enough for it to stand on its own weight - at a premium price. > > Finally, I'd be curious what percentage of web (internet/intranet) > development money comes from ISP shared-server application development and > hosting. My guess is that it's pretty small, but that's just my uneducated > guess. So would I. I would also be most interested to see a breakdown of sales of Cold Fusion Server (in all of its forms) and Ultradev. Why? e.g. Because if CF was free, and a hundred times or more developers used it as a direct result, (there might well be multiple developers, and multiple licensed copies of Ultradev per server), and which resulted in the sales of a hundred times or more copies of Ultradev - I would like to see where the most profit would come from. My guess is that it would easily be the latter. Adrian Cooper. ~~ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
Re: New CF5 Partner Hosting License
> On the enterprise side of things, is anyone using PHP for enterprise-wide > applications? If not, why not? Not only because I don't do enterprise-wide applications but also because scalability in PHP is very limited, no support for cluster etc... PHP is a very nice and still young tool, that is getting better, but, again, if you look at it, you can see that, for example, that session variables were added just on PHP 4, less than a year ago, and the way they works doesn't lend itself very well to scalability... As for me, 80% of my job on web applications is about small websites where I use CF and Access and rely on hosting companies for a decent service at 20-30$ a month. A crucial point for me to keep using CF instead of ASP (as the vast majority of my competitors) is that it doesn't add any additional costs for hosting if compared to ASP. The other 20% of my job is about larger apps, with SQL Server and CF, there some additional costs in hosting shouldn't cause me too much troubles, right now I am in the 50-100$ range, and my larger customers can live with it, maybe even with something more, but this is true only for the larger customers, higher costs on ISPs could easily make me move the smaller apps to a Unix/PHP/MySql solution, definitely cheap, not that easy to handle for my junior coworkers but also with some advantages (Unix stability, for most things MySql ways better than Access, great choice on ISPs). Well, I was learning PHP/MySql anyway, I think I will never stop loving CF, but I hope I will not see ISP's dropping support for it or asking too much money, in meantime, I will wait to see how things evolve. I live in a very small region (the italian part of Switzerland) where the vast majority of customers are local, small size companies, but I don't think I am alone in a similar scenario, depending a lot on the kind of hosting services ISPs can offer. Massimo Foti [EMAIL PROTECTED] My own Corner of the web http://www.massimocorner.com Dreamweaver, Ultradev and Fireworks goodies It should be this hole in the ozone layer But I am not the coder I use to be... ~~ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
Re: New CF5 Partner Hosting License
I am sorry, but I am actually sure you are overestimating the amount of people that buy Ultradev for its abilities to write CFML. The vast majority of Ultradev users are ASP developers, I would say more than 80%, I don't have exact numbers, but I use Ultradev since its early days, even before is was available to the public, and follow all the forums dedicated to it, I even do seminars for Macromedia Italy about the baby, in fact, Macromedia people kindly ask me to run my demos for Ultradev on ASP... (a pain in the ass for a CFML geek like me). Apart from that, even if I like Ultradev a lot, and I see some very great potential in it, it still has some *serious* issues on CFML, issues that are not inside its ASP or JSP implementations, it may sound silly or hard to believe, but the language that Ultradev really got wrong is CFML... Massimo Foti [EMAIL PROTECTED] My own Corner of the web http://www.massimocorner.com Dreamweaver, Ultradev and Fireworks goodies It should be this hole in the ozone layer But I am not the coder I use to be... "Adrian Cooper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:00ac01c0d037$9b0f8c40 > I would also be most interested to see a breakdown of sales of Cold Fusion > Server (in all of its forms) and Ultradev. > > Why? e.g. Because if CF was free, and a hundred times or more developers used it > as a direct result, (there might well be multiple developers, and multiple > licensed copies of Ultradev per server), and which resulted in the sales of a > hundred times or more copies of Ultradev - I would like to see where the most > profit would come from. My guess is that it would easily be the latter. > > Adrian Cooper. ~~ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
RE: New CF5 Partner Hosting License
I agree Dave. I was just trying to lighten the mood (on Friday) with the book comment. Our position is to wait and see. I think that if we had purchased Spectra at its price tag and then learned that there would not be future releases (and that some of its components would be in CF 5.0 at a lesser cost than Spectra), then we would be more concerned about getting what we are paying for. I think there may be some enterprise CEO's with a case of the Monday's when they hear that (with or without the facts behind it). john -Original Message- From: Dave Watts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2001 2:54 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: New CF5 Partner Hosting License > Anyone interested in writing a new SAMS book: Teach your > coldfusion developers PHP in 5 hours? No - because it'd be too hard. On the other hand, you could easily write a book teaching PHP developers CF in 5 hours. That's why CF is worth paying for, I suppose. Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ voice: (202) 797-5496 fax: (202) 797-5444 ~~ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
How can I get CF to ignore a form field with no data?
Hi, How can I get CF to ignore a form field with no data? I have a form with a field called MiddleInit which will not always be filled in. At the moment, however, an error message is generated if that field is blank. Sincerely, --- Hubert Earl ICQ#: 16199853 AIM: hubertfme My Jamaican Art, Craft & More Online Store: http://www.angelfire.com/ny/hearl/link_page_on_angelfire.html ~~ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
cf ezedit and word processing solutions
Does anyone have a lesson for cf_EzEdit? As great as it looks I can't make heads or tails of it at the moment. Any help would be appreciated. Any other word processor type solutions available? _ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
RE: How can I get CF to ignore a form field with no data?
Is the form data being submitted to a database? Are you using ? What is the error message that you are getting? -Original Message- From: Hubert Earl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2001 4:06 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: How can I get CF to ignore a form field with no data? Hi, How can I get CF to ignore a form field with no data? I have a form with a field called MiddleInit which will not always be filled in. At the moment, however, an error message is generated if that field is blank. Sincerely, --- Hubert Earl ICQ#: 16199853 AIM: hubertfme My Jamaican Art, Craft & More Online Store: http://www.angelfire.com/ny/hearl/link_page_on_angelfire.html ~~ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
RE: cf ezedit and word processing solutions
What did you want to accomplish with EZEdit? Format text on an existing page? Format text in a database? Format text passed into a form from another location? EZEdit acts like a textarea in a form. Because of that, EZEdit must be inside a set of form tags. Once the form is submitted, the action of the form will send the EZEdit information to another template so you can save, store or send the formatted text. If you want to put text in the EZEdit application when it the page loads, you need to dump the information into a variable that gets passed to EZEdit. Hope this helps. If you can answer the first question I might be able to help you more. Did you read the documentation that came with it? Did you look at the code behind the examples sent with the program? Peter -Original Message- From: Mark Smeets [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2001 5:39 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: cf ezedit and word processing solutions Does anyone have a lesson for cf_EzEdit? As great as it looks I can't make heads or tails of it at the moment. Any help would be appreciated. Any other word processor type solutions available? ~~ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
Re: How can I get CF to ignore a form field with no data?
Test it see if is blank or undefined with a cfif block in your SQL. Something like: Update table_name Set MiddleInit = '#form.MiddleInit #', field = form.field Where -Bill www.brainbox.tv - Original Message - From: "Hubert Earl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2001 7:05 PM Subject: How can I get CF to ignore a form field with no data? > Hi, > > How can I get CF to ignore a form field with no data? I have a form with a field called MiddleInit which will not always be filled in. At the moment, however, an error message is generated if that field is blank. > > Sincerely, > --- > Hubert Earl > > ICQ#: 16199853 > AIM: hubertfme > > My Jamaican Art, Craft & More Online Store: http://www.angelfire.com/ny/hearl/link_page_on_angelfire.html > > > > > ~~ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
Re: How can I get CF to ignore a form field with no data?
Oops. The other thing you can do is stick in a cfparam in the action page. like, Then if MiddleInit is undefined, it will be defined as an empty string, otherwise it is left alone = no error. -Bill www.brainbox.tv - Original Message - From: "Hubert Earl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2001 7:05 PM Subject: How can I get CF to ignore a form field with no data? > Hi, > > How can I get CF to ignore a form field with no data? I have a form with a field called MiddleInit which will not always be filled in. At the moment, however, an error message is generated if that field is blank. > > Sincerely, > --- > Hubert Earl > > ICQ#: 16199853 > AIM: hubertfme > > My Jamaican Art, Craft & More Online Store: http://www.angelfire.com/ny/hearl/link_page_on_angelfire.html > > > > > ~~ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
RE: New CF5 Partner Hosting License
You wrote: All of the "Harvest" components, which should significantly lower the costs for managing multiple applications per server. If they're going to release something which lowers the ISP's cost of business, why shouldn't MM feel entitled to a piece of that, especially given the amount of programming effort that it entailed? Isn't that the rub. The vendor is telling me that I am going to save money so charge me more. But the vendor doesn't know how to run my business. In fact the vendor often struggles with keeping their own operation up. How many times have we seen posts, "Is the Allaire site down?" Moreover, there is no guarantee that it will save money. There are still significant and critical bugs in CF 4.5 that have not been fixed. DO you really think you are going to save money going to a .0 release from Allaire. Their 4.0 was a unmitigated disaster. 3.0 was almost as bad. It took two service packs before the darn thing was stable enough to use in production. Don't expect anything better with CF5. If you deploy CF5 at release date expect to spend a lot of time and money paying to be part of the extended beta test program. When you go by a brand new car, do you trust the dealer to tell you that it is reliable and you will save money. No, of course not. You ask them to show you proof and you get independent reporting. But here you are saying that we should trust Allaire to save us money because they know what they are doing when it comes to shared hosting. I remember an earlier conversation with Jeremy when I was trying to deploy the very first shared hosting of CF with version 1.0. His response to me is 1.0 isn't designed to work with multiple hosts and why would you want to do that. Do you really think people will pay you to host applications? When 1.5 came out, we were finally able to start shared hosting on a national level but it wasn't until 2.01 that Allaire finally had an environment that would work in a shared hosting environment. It was almost two years before they realized that people would pay for shared hosting. Even then applications like Forums were never written to work in a shared hosting environment. Allaire has been slow to understand this market much less embrace it. Now you are telling me that they understand it so well that they want to save me money by raising the price for hosting by 300%. Yeah right!!! - Steve -Original Message- From: Dave Watts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2001 4:41 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: New CF5 Partner Hosting License > So, you're saying Macromedia is _purposely_ trying to get out > of being an application server for low-end, shared hosting? And > they're doing this by making it prohibitively expensive for > hosting providers. I think you're onto something. No, I don't think they're purposely trying to get out of anything. I think they're pursuing the share of the market that makes the most sense for them to gain, from their perspective. On the other hand, I wouldn't be surprised if they spent a disproportionate amount supporting ISPs' problems, with very little visible return. The historical direction of CF from version 3 onward has been aimed at the enterprise as best Allaire could, with the addition of shared memory, caching functionality, LDAP and X.500 security integration, and server clustering. It was never really intended for use in a shared-server environment: - there's only one server instance in memory, - it's always favored performance over stability, which is fine for dedicated applications, but not so good when any Joe can run code on a given box for a $50/year fee - individual applications can't have performance constraints placed on them Furthermore, had Allaire spent any time addressing those points, the core product would probably have suffered as a result. Now, although Allaire hadn't made significantly more per unit selling CF to ISPs as opposed to others, I'll bet they've had to field more support calls as a result of those ISP sales, when someone wrote code without locks, or with infinite loops, or some other stupid server-crashing trick. Consider this: what's one of the more noticeable additions to CF 5 Enterprise? All of the "Harvest" components, which should significantly lower the costs for managing multiple applications per server. If they're going to release something which lowers the ISP's cost of business, why shouldn't MM feel entitled to a piece of that, especially given the amount of programming effort that it entailed? Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ voice: (202) 797-5496 fax: (202) 797-5444 ~~ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
RE: New CF5 Partner Hosting License
> > It may be of no importance to application hosters (if by > > that you mean essentially ISPs who will host whatever they > > can host as cheaply as possible), but I'd argue that > > developers, and people using applications, may care very > > much about who to call when they have trouble. > > What I mean specifically, is that what really matters is > productivity and cost effectiveness. In the case of ASP and > PHP free is about as cost effective as it gets. Let's say that those are, in fact, the only two things that matter: productivity and cost-effectiveness. Do you measure either in the purchase price alone of the products? Are ASP and PHP, because they're free, more cost-effective by definition? No, they're not. For many people, CF will remain far more cost-effective, for various reasons. > > On the enterprise side of things, is anyone using PHP for > > enterprise-wide applications? If not, why not? > > Yet. Again, if not, why not? I've got a potential reason - PHP, while it's good, and free, and multi-platform, still doesn't have all of the functionality and abstraction that CF does. It's harder, and in many ways does less. > Ask the same question of ASP and in particular intentions for > ASP.NET. Microsoft has always had intentions towards the enterprise. People have been building enterprise applications with ASP for quite some time. In some respects, it's better suited for that than CF. Again, Microsoft isn't selling ASP - it's using it as additional leverage for the whole Microsoft "enterprise" line, where you'll use only NT/2K/XP servers, running SQL 2000 for internal data storage, using COM+ as the middle-tier application layer between your admittedly-hard-to-maintain ASP scripts and your databases, using MSMQ and Site Server to construct loosely-joined logic across multiple diverse physical locations within your enterprise, using IE as the client interface to everything, using BizTalk and SOAP to exchange data with the poor unfortunates in the rest of the world who haven't bought the entire MS collection. Microsoft is in the unique position of really having only one product to sell - but it's a doozy. The only way they can sell more of that product is to add more and more on top of it. Macromedia, on the other hand, can't have a ten-year plan for their application server. Their product IS the application server. > > It seems that there's likely to be a relatively inelastic > > demand for web development in the future, now that the "fad" > > part is over. There are only so many editors that can be sold. > > Since MM's design tools already cater to multiple platforms > > (and in fact have generally been popular for those other > > platforms), why shouldn't CF stand on its own weight? > > Because although CF is better, it is not better enough for it > to stand on its own weight - at a premium price. If you really believe that, you probably should prepare for the inevitable and start learning something else. If it's not good enough to buy, it's not good enough to use. > > If the product is worth using, it's worth selling. > > Really - don't you think ASP is worth using? Internet > Explorer? Outlook Express? If I had to choose between giving money to Netscape or MS for a browser, I'd give it to MS. The fact is, though, that MS is using IE, etc, as an incentive to get me to use Windows on every possible client and server platform. You, on the other hand, suggest that MM give away their flagship server-side product to sell editors! By your analogy, Microsoft should sell IE instead of Windows, and give Windows away for free. > > Finally, I'd be curious what percentage of web (internet/intranet) > > development money comes from ISP shared-server application > > development and hosting. My guess is that it's pretty small, but > > that's just my uneducated guess. > > So would I. Well, if so, what's the incentive to give CF away? If it's being bought by private companies for internal/external use, and they're willing to pay (which is obviously what MM thinks - and I'd guess they've done some research here) then why shouldn't they charge whatever they like? > I would also be most interested to see a breakdown of sales > of Cold Fusion Server (in all of its forms) and Ultradev. > > Why? e.g. Because if CF was free, and a hundred times or more > developers used it as a direct result, (there might well be > multiple developers, and multiple licensed copies of Ultradev > per server), and which resulted in the sales of a hundred times > or more copies of Ultradev - I would like to see where the most > profit would come from. My guess is that it would easily be > the latter. There are a couple of potential problems there. First, I think it would be very unlikely that CF developers would grow a hundredfold. There just aren't that many developers. In case you hadn't noticed, there's been a slight economic downturn, and the web development skills market is probably nea
RE: New CF5 Partner Hosting License
What MM should release an enterprise server version for the product for $695 with no support. If you want support buy an annual contract. Would you rather sell 10 copies at $695 with no support or 1 copy at $6,000? Then get in the business of developing training classes, books, development tools, and all the other gleeples that the corporate world loves to buy. But make it very cost effective for ISP's to deploy massive server farms in the field for shared and dedicated hosting. It ought to be an automatic deal, when setting up a server farm you buy the hardware, the OS, install a webserver and then CF. You want to be at a point where it is just automatic, you wouldn't think of deploying a server without CF support. Just as almost anyone will tell you right now, if you want to be into shared hosting on any sort of scale, you better support FrontPage. There is plenty of market to be had in a reasonably priced software product that facilitates rapid deployment of customized web apps. What MM fails to realize is that most employees can buy a software package for under $1,000 with 'mad' money. But anything over $5,000 in most corporate and government sites is considered a capital investment, and so it requires different level of approvals and accounting. Look at all the traffic this price increase has generated. Now think for a moment, what if MM had released the same FAQ on Friday saying: "CF5 Enterprise is going to be $695.00" Them MM should announce, We don't offer support, you get free upgrades to service packs, but you will pay retail for any major updates or need to buy an annual license, and each copy has a license checker to prevent running the same copy on multiple servers. That would force a number of folks to get their licenses in order, especially at hosting companies. If MM made this announcement, all of sudden you would think that MM is the smartest company in the world. That MM is the only company with a vision to understand this development market and all us would be dancing around patting ourselves on the back for being so smart for buying CF in the first place. But that didn't happen this weekend. Yet I could have sworn I heard a quiet "whew" up in Redmond just after the CF FAQ was published. Logic says if you need to generate more revenue raise your price. I can show you a number of companies that when they tried to use that logic, and their products did not dominate the market, they failed. If McAllaire wants to survive and better still grow, they need to lower their price and increase market share. I am not advocating giving the software away, that is stupid. But it needs to be priced from $495 to $995 and then sell the living daylights out of the stuff. later, - Steve -Original Message- From: Dave Watts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2001 4:51 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: New CF5 Partner Hosting License > As I keep saying - look what happened to Netscape Navigator > vis a vis Internet Explorer - Netscape's entire business model > collapsed it seems because IE was bundled and free. The same > applies to CF v ASP and to a lesser extent PHP. I'm not sure what lesson can be drawn from this. CF isn't free, because some company, with employees and stockholders, makes it. ASP isn't free, in any meaningful sense, either - just try to download a version for the platform of your choice, if it isn't Windows. PHP is free because it doesn't come from a company, and there are no employees and stockholders to satisfy. There's also no need for the PHP development team to directly satisfy the PHP user community, although they may certainly want to, given the free time and resources. But if they don't, none of them will be out of a job, will they. So, are you suggesting that the Allaire arm of MM should: 1. discharge everybody providing development and tech support services for CF, 2. not pay any of those people, 3. fund further development and support from the sales of their ubiquitous desktop OS (oh, wait a second...) None of those sound too likely to me. Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ voice: (202) 797-5496 fax: (202) 797-5444 ~~ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
RE: New CF5 Partner Hosting License
> When you go by a brand new car, do you trust the dealer to > tell you that it is reliable and you will save money. No, of > course not. You ask them to show you proof and you get > independent reporting. But here you are saying that we should > trust Allaire to save us money because they know what they > are doing when it comes to shared hosting. I went over my prior email pretty thoroughly, and couldn't find "trust Allaire" anywhere in it. Whew. Nor did I say that they knew what they're doing when it comes to shared hosting. To the best of my knowledge, they don't do much hosting at Allaire, and not so much CF development either. What I did say was, that like any other vendor, if they add stuff to their product and they think that stuff makes the product worth more, they're probably going to feel entitled to raise the price of their product. Anyone surprised by that? > ... But the vendor doesn't know how to run my business. That's funny. Everyone here (myself included I guess) seems to think that they know how to run the CF business. This keen business insight mostly sounds like "don't raise my prices!" Just like with a new car, though, caveat emptor. You always have the choice not to buy. Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ voice: (202) 797-5496 fax: (202) 797-5444 ~~ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
RE: New CF5 Partner Hosting License
you wrote: >> In case you hadn't noticed, there's been a slight economic >> downturn, and the web development skills market is probably >> near-saturated right now. If that is the case, why is Allaire selling out every conference and almost every tech class they hold. - Steve -Original Message- From: Dave Watts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2001 10:35 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: New CF5 Partner Hosting License > > It may be of no importance to application hosters (if by > > that you mean essentially ISPs who will host whatever they > > can host as cheaply as possible), but I'd argue that > > developers, and people using applications, may care very > > much about who to call when they have trouble. > > What I mean specifically, is that what really matters is > productivity and cost effectiveness. In the case of ASP and > PHP free is about as cost effective as it gets. Let's say that those are, in fact, the only two things that matter: productivity and cost-effectiveness. Do you measure either in the purchase price alone of the products? Are ASP and PHP, because they're free, more cost-effective by definition? No, they're not. For many people, CF will remain far more cost-effective, for various reasons. > > On the enterprise side of things, is anyone using PHP for > > enterprise-wide applications? If not, why not? > > Yet. Again, if not, why not? I've got a potential reason - PHP, while it's good, and free, and multi-platform, still doesn't have all of the functionality and abstraction that CF does. It's harder, and in many ways does less. > Ask the same question of ASP and in particular intentions for > ASP.NET. Microsoft has always had intentions towards the enterprise. People have been building enterprise applications with ASP for quite some time. In some respects, it's better suited for that than CF. Again, Microsoft isn't selling ASP - it's using it as additional leverage for the whole Microsoft "enterprise" line, where you'll use only NT/2K/XP servers, running SQL 2000 for internal data storage, using COM+ as the middle-tier application layer between your admittedly-hard-to-maintain ASP scripts and your databases, using MSMQ and Site Server to construct loosely-joined logic across multiple diverse physical locations within your enterprise, using IE as the client interface to everything, using BizTalk and SOAP to exchange data with the poor unfortunates in the rest of the world who haven't bought the entire MS collection. Microsoft is in the unique position of really having only one product to sell - but it's a doozy. The only way they can sell more of that product is to add more and more on top of it. Macromedia, on the other hand, can't have a ten-year plan for their application server. Their product IS the application server. > > It seems that there's likely to be a relatively inelastic > > demand for web development in the future, now that the "fad" > > part is over. There are only so many editors that can be sold. > > Since MM's design tools already cater to multiple platforms > > (and in fact have generally been popular for those other > > platforms), why shouldn't CF stand on its own weight? > > Because although CF is better, it is not better enough for it > to stand on its own weight - at a premium price. If you really believe that, you probably should prepare for the inevitable and start learning something else. If it's not good enough to buy, it's not good enough to use. > > If the product is worth using, it's worth selling. > > Really - don't you think ASP is worth using? Internet > Explorer? Outlook Express? If I had to choose between giving money to Netscape or MS for a browser, I'd give it to MS. The fact is, though, that MS is using IE, etc, as an incentive to get me to use Windows on every possible client and server platform. You, on the other hand, suggest that MM give away their flagship server-side product to sell editors! By your analogy, Microsoft should sell IE instead of Windows, and give Windows away for free. > > Finally, I'd be curious what percentage of web (internet/intranet) > > development money comes from ISP shared-server application > > development and hosting. My guess is that it's pretty small, but > > that's just my uneducated guess. > > So would I. Well, if so, what's the incentive to give CF away? If it's being bought by private companies for internal/external use, and they're willing to pay (which is obviously what MM thinks - and I'd guess they've done some research here) then why shouldn't they charge whatever they like? > I would also be most interested to see a breakdown of sales > of Cold Fusion Server (in all of its forms) and Ultradev. > > Why? e.g. Because if CF was free, and a hundred times or more > developers used it as a direct result, (there might well be > multiple developers, and multiple licensed copies of Ultradev > per server), and which resulted in the sales of a hundred times > or more cop
RE: New CF5 Partner Hosting License
> What MM should release an enterprise server version for the > product for $695 with no support. If you want support buy an > annual contract. Would you rather sell 10 copies at $695 with > no support or 1 copy at $6,000? Well, if I'm paying a little per-copy to Netegrity, some more to Verity, I'd probably stick with the one copy. More margin. It's a good thing they bought Live Software and BrightTiger, so they wouldn't have to pay for those components, and even better that Allaire got bought by MM - have you any idea how expensive Generator 2 EE is? Yikes! Again, it's easy for us to all speculate on how easy it would be for MM to rule the world if they just did things our way. In my humble business experience, every business looks pretty easy until you start doing it yourself. Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ voice: (202) 797-5496 fax: (202) 797-5444 ~~ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
RE: New CF5 Partner Hosting License
> >> In case you hadn't noticed, there's been a slight economic > >> downturn, and the web development skills market is probably > >> near-saturated right now. > If that is the case, why is Allaire selling out every > conference and almost > every tech class they hold. And if this is the case then how does raising the price of hosting CF apps help in this situation? More developers means less income means that CF developers who aren't corporate developers are now more cost conscious than before. Seems like a bad time to raise your prices. ~~ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
RE: New CF5 Partner Hosting License
-Original Message- From: Dave Watts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 1. You can take out "MM" from the above sentence, and replace it with any publicly-held company. That's the job of companies. Not to "provide a better development environment", not to make the world a better place, but to make money. However they can make that money the easiest is the best path, and it's their responsibility to their stockholders to follow that path. Everything else is just a bonus. -Original Message- Unfortunately, knowing the realities of publicly traded companies first hand, I have to, albeit reluctantly, agree with the facts of your statement. I find it sad that we have developed a system where the anonymity that results from being one of the many stockholders pushes profit at all cost and does not set a tone to "...make the world a better place". Sometimes I think that the bonus should be to make the profit. Of course I then look at my mutual finds, stocks, and my business plan and get back to the real world, hopefully tempered by the mental exercise. You can't change the world all in one day. Best Regards, Dennis Powers UXB Internet (203) 879-2844 http://www.uxbinfo.com/ ~~ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
Continue processing form based on user input
Can someone suggest the best approach to "cancel or continue with" form processing based on user input? The scenario is: -form submitted -possible duplicate record detected in "action" poage -ask user whether to proceed with processing --if user says "yes" then continue processing form variables in the "action" page --if user says "no" cancel form processing and throw up an information screen. I have been playing around with several Javascript approaches to doing this, but I don't now JS all that well. Is there a CF way to do it, keeping in mind that I need to maintain my form variables if the user wishes to proceed. Can someone suggest a good approach, CF or otherwise, to this problem? TNX. Rick Colman. ~~ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
RE: New CF5 Partner Hosting License
I don't know about all this stuff with Macromedia. I think they are trying to target the hosting providers because they think they can make money from them. I think what the real problem is this, will ISP pay more to get these added benefits. What about cfm-resources.com. Encouraging a whole new breed of cf developers for nothing. Pablo would have to pay more money for his new CF5. Who is gonna really be hurt by this? The answer is everyone. Most developers are getting started by making a small site on a hosting provider. If these new people don't want to pay even more to program and just go to ASP, what kind of growth will our field be getting. These new features may be awesome but if you're charging someone now 12g's because they have 4 processors, when before it was only gonna be 5g's which do you think they will go with. And also all those hosting sites that charge and have a subscription. They were expecting to pay no more money for any of these benefits and now they will. I think Macromedia is kidding themselves when they think these hosting providers are making thier money off of CF. Most have done it because the smaller companies couldn't afford to buy CF. So they stepped up, bought CF, and charged more to do it. So now instead of $50 a month how much will it be for someone like me $70, $80, $90. That's when I draw the line. Sure Macromedia will get people to buy these new licenses, but at what cost. I just can't agree with you this time Dave. I know they have to make money and they have to answer to stock holders, but at least they should have looked at the field more. I think they are just opening a whole bowl of worms with this and we all see it because we know what is going to happen. Bob Everland -Original Message- From: Dave Watts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2001 4:51 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: New CF5 Partner Hosting License > As I keep saying - look what happened to Netscape Navigator > vis a vis Internet Explorer - Netscape's entire business model > collapsed it seems because IE was bundled and free. The same > applies to CF v ASP and to a lesser extent PHP. I'm not sure what lesson can be drawn from this. CF isn't free, because some company, with employees and stockholders, makes it. ASP isn't free, in any meaningful sense, either - just try to download a version for the platform of your choice, if it isn't Windows. PHP is free because it doesn't come from a company, and there are no employees and stockholders to satisfy. There's also no need for the PHP development team to directly satisfy the PHP user community, although they may certainly want to, given the free time and resources. But if they don't, none of them will be out of a job, will they. So, are you suggesting that the Allaire arm of MM should: 1. discharge everybody providing development and tech support services for CF, 2. not pay any of those people, 3. fund further development and support from the sales of their ubiquitous desktop OS (oh, wait a second...) None of those sound too likely to me. Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ voice: (202) 797-5496 fax: (202) 797-5444 ~~ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
Re: New CF5 Partner Hosting License
I take offense to that statement. No one says that Allaire shouldn't be able to eat dinner. I shouldn't have to suffer under some new licensing model. I made a commitment to the product (albeit 4.0 and 4.5, doubtfully 5.x). In order to stay competitive in the hosting market place I will be forced to upgrade to the latest version. The person who, unfortunately, will end up paying for this will be the end user. The price of hosting a CF plan will have to go up. It is just the nature of the game where cost increase and so does end user price. Its sad because people want to host CF sites and don't want the pay the $19.95 a month we charge now What we are saying is don't blatantly rob the people who are supporting the community. As a web host who hosts plenty of CF sites I find many people who want to use the product and develop code but are unable to afford their own license. As a hosting provider I shouldn't be forced to pay more. We have plans in place for current and future customers that would need to be completely reorganized with the newest edition of CF Server. One another note I thought I would let you know that CF has pulled me out of a deep sleep all too many times. Allaires product is good however it is far too dangrous when you have someone behind the wheel who doesn't have a drivers license. I rarely have that case with ASP. There is an Added comfort with ASP as it is designed and integrated by the OS manufacturer. Also it is not written to overrun CPU or memory with the simplest error. On a final note: ASP is free and there are no doubt or argument about it. It doesn't cost more to implement or download. Neil - Original Message - From: "Dave Watts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2001 10:54 PM Subject: RE: New CF5 Partner Hosting License > > What MM should release an enterprise server version for the > > product for $695 with no support. If you want support buy an > > annual contract. Would you rather sell 10 copies at $695 with > > no support or 1 copy at $6,000? > > Well, if I'm paying a little per-copy to Netegrity, some more to Verity, I'd > probably stick with the one copy. More margin. It's a good thing they bought > Live Software and BrightTiger, so they wouldn't have to pay for those > components, and even better that Allaire got bought by MM - have you any > idea how expensive Generator 2 EE is? Yikes! > > Again, it's easy for us to all speculate on how easy it would be for MM to > rule the world if they just did things our way. In my humble business > experience, every business looks pretty easy until you start doing it > yourself. > > Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software > http://www.figleaf.com/ > voice: (202) 797-5496 > fax: (202) 797-5444 > > ~~ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
Re: New CF5 Partner Hosting License
Well, to this I can honestly say that that is not true. We do CF Hosting and charge low fees, without any problems. We're currently averaging $8.00 a month (on a year plan) or in some cases users select the $5.00 for life plan that DOES include CF Hosting. So, if you really feel that the users must pay more, simply because the price is a bit more, than that's your opinion, which you are entitled to have. Pablo Varando CFM-Resources.Com, Corp. http://www.cfm-resources.com - Original Message - From: "Neil H." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2001 1:39 AM Subject: Re: New CF5 Partner Hosting License > I take offense to that statement. No one says that Allaire shouldn't be > able to eat dinner. I shouldn't have to suffer under some new licensing > model. I made a commitment to the product (albeit 4.0 and 4.5, doubtfully > 5.x). In order to stay competitive in the hosting market place I will be > forced to upgrade to the latest version. The person who, unfortunately, > will end up paying for this will be the end user. The price of hosting a CF > plan will have to go up. It is just the nature of the game where cost > increase and so does end user price. Its sad because people want to host CF > sites and don't want the pay the $19.95 a month we charge now What we > are saying is don't blatantly rob the people who are supporting the > community. As a web host who hosts plenty of CF sites I find many people > who want to use the product and develop code but are unable to afford their > own license. As a hosting provider I shouldn't be forced to pay more. We > have plans in place for current and future customers that would need to be > completely reorganized with the newest edition of CF Server. > > One another note I thought I would let you know that CF has pulled me out of > a deep sleep all too many times. Allaires product is good however it is far > too dangrous when you have someone behind the wheel who doesn't have a > drivers license. I rarely have that case with ASP. There is an Added > comfort with ASP as it is designed and integrated by the OS manufacturer. > Also it is not written to overrun CPU or memory with the simplest error. > > On a final note: ASP is free and there are no doubt or argument about it. > It doesn't cost more to implement or download. > > Neil > > - Original Message - > From: "Dave Watts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2001 10:54 PM > Subject: RE: New CF5 Partner Hosting License > > > > > What MM should release an enterprise server version for the > > > product for $695 with no support. If you want support buy an > > > annual contract. Would you rather sell 10 copies at $695 with > > > no support or 1 copy at $6,000? > > > > Well, if I'm paying a little per-copy to Netegrity, some more to Verity, > I'd > > probably stick with the one copy. More margin. It's a good thing they > bought > > Live Software and BrightTiger, so they wouldn't have to pay for those > > components, and even better that Allaire got bought by MM - have you any > > idea how expensive Generator 2 EE is? Yikes! > > > > Again, it's easy for us to all speculate on how easy it would be for MM to > > rule the world if they just did things our way. In my humble business > > experience, every business looks pretty easy until you start doing it > > yourself. > > > > Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software > > http://www.figleaf.com/ > > voice: (202) 797-5496 > > fax: (202) 797-5444 > > > > > ~~ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
Re: CF5 Hosting License FAQ
On 4/27/01, Chris Colón penned: >"Shared server hosting services" refers to the practice of hosting >multiple applications, each created by a different third party, on a >single server. >Shared server hosting is different from dedicated hosting services, in >that a single server hosts one or more applications created by a >single third party. OK, so I have a web server and basically all the CF apps on it were created by me although some of them were tied into websites that were already built. So what is considered the application? The CF app itself or the overall website? I have a couple sites with applications that were built then moved to my server. However before anything goes live on my server I go in, go through the application and make any necessary changes to make it run safely on my server. Does that mean I "helped" to build it and thus it falls under the definition of built by a single party? Suppose I don't want or can't afford all the functionality of CF Enterprise? Which I don't and can't. That's why I bought Pro and not Enterprise. Why WON'T they offer a hosting license for the Pro version for maybe 1,500 or 2,000? 6k is way too much. I licensed unlimited client access to SQL 2000 for 4,100, albeit that is per processor so I had to resort to buying a single processor box for it. I could have licensed SQL Enterprise for 28k. At least MS gave me a choice. Once I got to 50 or 60 CF sites on my server I was planning on buying a new box and buying another copy of CF. I guess I'll either have to: a) Buy a copy or 2 of 4.5 now and HOPE I need them someday. b) Go back to reselling services on an overloaded CF host's server, which is why I bought my own server in the first place, to get away from overloaded server's like many CF hosts put you on. c) Learn another language. -- Bud Schneehagen - Tropical Web Creations _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ ColdFusion Solutions / eCommerce Development [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.twcreations.com/ 954.721.3452 ~~ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
