Re: Macromedia.com RIP?
On Monday 17 July 2006 20:59, Tim Claremont wrote: Pinging Macromedia.com gets no response. If it used to work at all, all that could mean is that Adobe have more sensible firewall rules. -- Tom Chiverton This email is sent for and on behalf of Halliwells LLP. Halliwells LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales under registered number OC307980 whose registered office address is at St James's Court Brown Street Manchester M2 2JF. A list of members is available for inspection at the registered office. Any reference to a partner in relation to Halliwells LLP means a member of Halliwells LLP. Regulated by the Law Society. CONFIDENTIALITY This email is intended only for the use of the addressee named above and may be confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the addressee you must not read it and must not use any information contained in nor copy it nor inform any person other than Halliwells LLP or the addressee of its existence or contents. If you have received this email in error please delete it and notify Halliwells LLP IT Department on 0870 365 8008. For more information about Halliwells LLP visit www.halliwells.com. ~| Introducing the Fusion Authority Quarterly Update. 80 pages of hard-hitting, up-to-date ColdFusion information by your peers, delivered to your door four times a year. http://www.fusionauthority.com/quarterly Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/message.cfm/forumid:4/messageid:246855 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
Re: Macromedia.com RIP?
Just as a laugh I put in www.allaire.com which redirected me to www.macromedia.com and then, it redirected me to ww.adobe.com. I wonder if in a number of years, and adobe gets bought by, say, apple we will have more redirections? (I am not implying that Adobe will ever be bought out by Apple, was just a company I pulled out of the thin air) MD On 7/18/06, Tom Chiverton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Monday 17 July 2006 20:59, Tim Claremont wrote: Pinging Macromedia.com gets no response. If it used to work at all, all that could mean is that Adobe have more sensible firewall rules. -- Tom Chiverton This email is sent for and on behalf of Halliwells LLP. Halliwells LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales under registered number OC307980 whose registered office address is at St James's Court Brown Street Manchester M2 2JF. A list of members is available for inspection at the registered office. Any reference to a partner in relation to Halliwells LLP means a member of Halliwells LLP. Regulated by the Law Society. CONFIDENTIALITY This email is intended only for the use of the addressee named above and may be confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the addressee you must not read it and must not use any information contained in nor copy it nor inform any person other than Halliwells LLP or the addressee of its existence or contents. If you have received this email in error please delete it and notify Halliwells LLP IT Department on 0870 365 8008. For more information about Halliwells LLP visit www.halliwells.com. ~| Introducing the Fusion Authority Quarterly Update. 80 pages of hard-hitting, up-to-date ColdFusion information by your peers, delivered to your door four times a year. http://www.fusionauthority.com/quarterly Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/message.cfm/forumid:4/messageid:246858 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.4
Re: Macromedia.com RIP?
On Tuesday 18 July 2006 10:01, Mark Drew wrote: I wonder if in a number of years, and adobe gets bought by, say, apple we *shhh* :-) -- Tom Chiverton This email is sent for and on behalf of Halliwells LLP. Halliwells LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales under registered number OC307980 whose registered office address is at St James's Court Brown Street Manchester M2 2JF. A list of members is available for inspection at the registered office. Any reference to a partner in relation to Halliwells LLP means a member of Halliwells LLP. Regulated by the Law Society. CONFIDENTIALITY This email is intended only for the use of the addressee named above and may be confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the addressee you must not read it and must not use any information contained in nor copy it nor inform any person other than Halliwells LLP or the addressee of its existence or contents. If you have received this email in error please delete it and notify Halliwells LLP IT Department on 0870 365 8008. For more information about Halliwells LLP visit www.halliwells.com. ~| Introducing the Fusion Authority Quarterly Update. 80 pages of hard-hitting, up-to-date ColdFusion information by your peers, delivered to your door four times a year. http://www.fusionauthority.com/quarterly Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/message.cfm/forumid:4/messageid:246860 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.4
Re: Macromedia.com RIP?
Or get in an infinite loop once Jeremy or JJ buys out Adobe... and changes it's name to Allaire Mingo. Mark Drew wrote: Just as a laugh I put in www.allaire.com which redirected me to www.macromedia.com and then, it redirected me to ww.adobe.com. I wonder if in a number of years, and adobe gets bought by, say, apple we will have more redirections? ~| Introducing the Fusion Authority Quarterly Update. 80 pages of hard-hitting, up-to-date ColdFusion information by your peers, delivered to your door four times a year. http://www.fusionauthority.com/quarterly Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/message.cfm/forumid:4/messageid:246861 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.4
Macromedia.com RIP?
I had some shortcuts in my browser set for Macromedia.com. In the last hour they stopped working. Pinging Macromedia.com gets no response. Looks like Macromedia.com is now fully ported to Adobe.com! ~| Introducing the Fusion Authority Quarterly Update. 80 pages of hard-hitting, up-to-date ColdFusion information by your peers, delivered to your door four times a year. http://www.fusionauthority.com/quarterly Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/message.cfm/forumid:4/messageid:246814 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.4
Re: Macromedia.com RIP?
On 7/17/06, Tim Claremont [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I had some shortcuts in my browser set for Macromedia.com. In the last hour they stopped working. Pinging Macromedia.com gets no response. Looks like Macromedia.com is now fully ported to Adobe.com! Not quite: http://weblogs.macromedia.com/mxna/ still works for me. As for the rest of the site, I think that was done several weeks ago, regardless of it's ping-ability. Regards, Dave. ~| Introducing the Fusion Authority Quarterly Update. 80 pages of hard-hitting, up-to-date ColdFusion information by your peers, delivered to your door four times a year. http://www.fusionauthority.com/quarterly Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/message.cfm/forumid:4/messageid:246816 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
Re: Macromedia.com RIP?
http://weblogs.macromedia.com/mxna/ still works :) On 7/17/06, Tim Claremont [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I had some shortcuts in my browser set for Macromedia.com. In the last hour they stopped working. Pinging Macromedia.com gets no response. Looks like Macromedia.com is now fully ported to Adobe.com! ~| Introducing the Fusion Authority Quarterly Update. 80 pages of hard-hitting, up-to-date ColdFusion information by your peers, delivered to your door four times a year. http://www.fusionauthority.com/quarterly Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/message.cfm/forumid:4/messageid:246817 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.4
Re: Macromedia.com RIP?
Looks like the forwarding change for my particular bookmark took place in the last half hour or so. My original bookmark was this: http://www.macromedia.com/cfusion/webforums/forum/categories.cfm?forumid=1catid=3 Which worked fine earlier today. It later resulted in no response. As of a few minutes ago, the address autoforwards to: http://www.adobe.com/cfusion/webforums/forum/categories.cfm?forumid=1catid=3 The ping to Macromedia.com still times out on me. I guess that is what I get for hitting the page at the worst possible instant in time. ~| Introducing the Fusion Authority Quarterly Update. 80 pages of hard-hitting, up-to-date ColdFusion information by your peers, delivered to your door four times a year. http://www.fusionauthority.com/quarterly Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/message.cfm/forumid:4/messageid:246819 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
Re: Macromedia.com RIP?
Only takes a min to make a site wide redirect... you don't even need to change the code... just plop this in application.cfm !--- 301 REDIRECTION TO THE CORRECT DOMAIN NAME - adobe.com --- CFIF NOT #CGI.SERVER_NAME# CONTAINS www.adobe.com CFHEADER STATUSCODE=301 STATUSTEXT=Moved permanently CFSET strNewURL=http://www.adobe.com#CGI.SCRIPT_NAME#; CFIF #CGI.QUERY_STRING# NEQ CFSET strNewURL=#strNewURL#?#CGI.QUERY_STRING# /CFIF CFHEADER NAME=Location VALUE=#strNewURL# /CFIF -- http://www.Saratoga.com ~| Introducing the Fusion Authority Quarterly Update. 80 pages of hard-hitting, up-to-date ColdFusion information by your peers, delivered to your door four times a year. http://www.fusionauthority.com/quarterly Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/message.cfm/forumid:4/messageid:246829 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
Re: Macromedia.com RIP?
For a simple, pure-CF site, perhaps. Macromedia.com, on the other hand, used multiple, or at least non-default, context paths (which break your cgi.script_name attempt), a whole pile of non-CF stuff (which wouldn't be affected by a CFML solution), and a bunch of mod_rewrite (which would need to be modded directly to ensure the unrewritten URLs are what was transfered). cheers, barneyb On 7/17/06, Casey Dougall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Only takes a min to make a site wide redirect... you don't even need to change the code... just plop this in application.cfm !--- 301 REDIRECTION TO THE CORRECT DOMAIN NAME - adobe.com --- CFIF NOT #CGI.SERVER_NAME# CONTAINS www.adobe.com CFHEADER STATUSCODE=301 STATUSTEXT=Moved permanently CFSET strNewURL=http://www.adobe.com#CGI.SCRIPT_NAME#; CFIF #CGI.QUERY_STRING# NEQ CFSET strNewURL=#strNewURL#?#CGI.QUERY_STRING# /CFIF CFHEADER NAME=Location VALUE=#strNewURL# /CFIF -- -- Barney Boisvert [EMAIL PROTECTED] 360.319.6145 http://www.barneyb.com/ Got Gmail? I have 100 invites. ~| Introducing the Fusion Authority Quarterly Update. 80 pages of hard-hitting, up-to-date ColdFusion information by your peers, delivered to your door four times a year. http://www.fusionauthority.com/quarterly Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/message.cfm/forumid:4/messageid:246830 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.4
Macromedia.com Developer Exchange UI - is this Flex or CFFORM?
I'm trying to accomplish something close to what the Macromedia Developer Exchange has, a flash form with a column-sortable grid and cells that contain links. http://www.macromedia.com/cfusion/exchange/index.cfm#loc=en_usview=sn130viewName=ColdFusion%20Exchangeauthorid=0page=0scrollPos=0subcatid=0snid=sn130itemnumber=-1extid=0catid=1 I haven't been able to figure out how to accomplish this with cfgrid/cfform. Can anyone tell me if MACR is using standard cfform functionality here, or are they using Flex? Are there any code examples of how to accomplish this? Thanks Pete ~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:233546 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Donations Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
RE: Macromedia.com Developer Exchange UI - is this Flex or CFFORM?
Looks like tables and links form here. -Original Message- From: Pete Ruckelshaus [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 11:54 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: Macromedia.com Developer Exchange UI - is this Flex or CFFORM? I'm trying to accomplish something close to what the Macromedia Developer Exchange has, a flash form with a column-sortable grid and cells that contain links. http://www.macromedia.com/cfusion/exchange/index.cfm#loc=en_usview=sn130vi ewName=ColdFusion%20Exchangeauthorid=0page=0scrollPos=0subcatid=0snid=s n130itemnumber=-1extid=0catid=1 I haven't been able to figure out how to accomplish this with cfgrid/cfform. Can anyone tell me if MACR is using standard cfform functionality here, or are they using Flex? Are there any code examples of how to accomplish this? Thanks Pete ~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:233549 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Donations Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
SOT: Macromedia.com Search Broken
I'm trying to run a search for the Gartner papers from the Development Speed thread. Unfortunately, I'm getting a Null Pointer ColdFusion error when I run it. Here's the URL: http://www.macromedia.com/cfusion/search/index.cfm?loc=en_usterm=coldfusion%20mx%20gartner And here's what I get: The system has attempted to use an undefined value, which usually indicates a programming error, either in your code or some system code. Null Pointers are another name for undefined values. Not sure who at Macromedia to send this too, so I figured a MM person could pick this up on cf-talk. Regards, Dave. PS -- Where's your Site Wide Error Handler!! ;) ~| Find out how CFTicket can increase your company's customer support efficiency by 100% http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=49 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:196568 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.4 Donations Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
Re: SOT: Macromedia.com Search Broken
On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 11:39:51 -0500, Dave Carabetta [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm trying to run a search for the Gartner papers from the Development Speed thread. Unfortunately, I'm getting a Null Pointer ColdFusion error when I run it. Here's the URL: Works for me so either it was a temporary glitch or is only occurring on one server instance. When anyone out there hits a CF error like this on macromedia.com, it will help us debug it if you immediately hit this URL: http://www.macromedia.com/cfusion/build_data.cfm That tells you which build, which server and which instance you are running against (we run sticky session at the app server layer). That helps us check whether the problem is site wide or just with a single instance. PS -- Where's your Site Wide Error Handler!! ;) Hmm, maybe the site wide error handler had an error? We do have one, at least in theory. If you can reproduce a case where you get the raw error, send me the details and I'll get someone to look into it... -- Sean A Corfield -- http://www.corfield.org/ Team Fusebox -- http://www.fusebox.org/ Breeze Me! -- http://www.corfield.org/breezeme Got Gmail? -- I have 48, yes 48, invites to give away! If you're not annoying somebody, you're not really alive. -- Margaret Atwood ~| Logware (www.logware.us): a new and convenient web-based time tracking application. Start tracking and documenting hours spent on a project or with a client with Logware today. Try it for free with a 15 day trial account. http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=67 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:196640 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.4 Donations Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
Re: Download link broken on Macromedia.com
I had a similar problem with downloads from the MM site. Turned out my firewall was blocking downloads of types not specified, and for some reason the original packet info sent from the MM site doesn't appear as an exe but as something else. Cutter Sean Corfield wrote: On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 09:34:30 +1000, Mike Kear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've been trying to update my FLASH MX2004PRoand all I get from http://download.macromedia.com/pub/flash/updates/mx2004/flmx2004_702update_en.exe is page is not available It downloads just fine for me... the 68Mb file took about three minutes to download. -- Sean A Corfield -- http://www.corfield.org/blog/ If you're not annoying somebody, you're not really alive. -- Margaret Atwood [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
Re: Download link broken on Macromedia.com
On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 04:30:46 -0400, Cutter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I had a similar problem with downloads from the MM site. Turned out my firewall was blocking downloads of types not specified, and for some reason the original packet info sent from the MM site doesn't appear as an exe but as something else. Interesting. I can ask the web team about that. I also believe that in order to download bits from that site, you need to access it from a macromedia.com URL and you need cookies enabled (to prevent direct download bits being distributed - which allows Macromedia to switch the names of download files whenever they update bits). -- Sean A Corfield -- http://www.corfield.org/blog/ If you're not annoying somebody, you're not really alive. -- Margaret Atwood [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
Download link broken on Macromedia.com
I've been trying to update my FLASH MX2004PRoand all I get from http://download.macromedia.com/pub/flash/updates/mx2004/flmx2004_702update_en.exe is page is not available Does anyone have another link to the Flash updater please? (before you send 'works for me messages,I've tried it in three different browsers,using both click on the link and right-click and select 'save target',and i've typed the url into a browser and this has been over a few days now.All to the same effect - page not found) Anyone able to help me please? - Cheers Mike Kear Windsor, NSW, Australia AFP Webworks http://afpwebworks.com .com,.net,.org domains from AUD$20/Year [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
RE: Download link broken on Macromedia.com
I've been trying to update my FLASH MX2004PRo and all I get from http://download.macromedia.com/pub/flash/updates/mx2004/flmx20 04_702update_en.exe is page is not available Does anyone have another link to the Flash updater please? (before you send 'works for me messages,I've tried it in three different browsers,using both click on the link and right-click and select 'save target',and i've typed the url into a browser and this has been over a few days now.All to the same effect - page not found) Anyone able to help me please? I don't have another link, but have you tried fetching this from another machine? I just tried it and, well, it works for me. You might also use wget, which is really good for downloading files like this. Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ phone: 202-797-5496 fax: 202-797-5444 [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
Re: Download link broken on Macromedia.com
I also tried it using FlashGet, which also told me the file is not available.A big red X. I've downloaded other .exe files recently,so it's not a firewall issue I dont think. Cheers Mike Kear Windsor, NSW, Australia AFP Webworks http://afpwebworks.com .com,.net,.org domains from AUD$20/Year [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
Re: Download link broken on Macromedia.com
On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 09:34:30 +1000, Mike Kear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've been trying to update my FLASH MX2004PRoand all I get from http://download.macromedia.com/pub/flash/updates/mx2004/flmx2004_702update_en.exe is page is not available It downloads just fine for me... the 68Mb file took about three minutes to download. -- Sean A Corfield -- http://www.corfield.org/blog/ If you're not annoying somebody, you're not really alive. -- Margaret Atwood [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
Re: Download link broken on Macromedia.com
I dont know why it wouldnt work from this PC.I ended up downloading it from another pc about 20 minutes ago. The only thing that's changed between these two machinesis i have installed WInXP SP2.But I didn't think that affected this if the WIndows Firewall is turned off. It didnt prevent me downloading it with a warning 'warning - downlading things like this can make you sterile and cause your plants to wilt ... kind of thing.Oh no it gave me a page could not be found error. On IE, Netscape, Opera, and Firefox, and also on FlashGet. Anyone know why this could be? Cheers Mike Kear Windsor, NSW, Australia AFP Webworks http://afpwebworks.com .com,.net,.org domains from AUD$20/Year - Original Message - From: Sean Corfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 22:21:35 -0700 Subject: Re: Download link broken on Macromedia.com To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 09:34:30 +1000, Mike Kear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've been trying to update my FLASH MX2004PRoand all I get from http://download.macromedia.com/pub/flash/updates/mx2004/flmx2004_702update_en.exe is page is not available It downloads just fine for me... the 68Mb file took about three minutes to download. -- Sean A Corfield -- http://www.corfield.org/blog/ If you're not annoying somebody, you're not really alive. -- Margaret Atwood [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
Macromedia.com running under Mach II ...
Christian, Sorry to wake this one up again ... but your statement here really concerned me. I've struggled on and off nearly the whole day trying to get subscribed to this list so that my posts go through. Let's see if it works this time ... snip ... when Sean comes back, I will discuss this issue with him... his actions should not be interpreted as an official Macromedia endorsement of any one project over another. /snip How would you manage these interpretations? How can anyone do that? All you can do is make yourself or your company or your project as bland as possible, a white wall in a white room, in a misguided effort to cut down on interpretation. In the end it just doesn't work - those who want in a certain moment to interpret will still interpret. In fact, in my experience, they (we) will interpret more. I personally appreciate the added color these days, the more personal access from people working at MM. And i think a lot of other people do as well. It is true that at times personal preferences will show through in what you guys present, but i would MUCH MUCH rather have a chance to take a good look at the personal preferences of some of theexperienced and talented people who are working at Macromedia, than be shielded from them in an effort to be neutral. If neutrality is a virtue in this regard, then Michael here on his own list should be equally careful professing opinions and preferences (about Macromedia's use of frameworks for instance), because his opinion of course carries more weight than someone like me. Likewise, Matt is the president of a software company. Matt's opinions certainly carry more weight in the innocent blue eyes of more junior developers like myself. Why is Montara Software or House of Fusion any different from Macromedia in this regard? They aren't. The way this thread presents the issue makes it look like IF Sean and his team had decided to use the Mach-II framework because they thought it technically the best decision, (and i'm sure they made the decision on technical merits, because no other motive makes any sense for them at all - ie, THEY were not susceptible to being unduly influenced by Macromedia's use of Mach-II) ... THEN they should have hidden the fact from us. Does that help anyone? Does encouraging a policy of hiding what you know and do because you are talented and experienced - and therefore your reputation carries a certain added weight of validity - balance anything? Make anything fair? Is that moral somehow? I don't think so. So before this thread drifts off into dreamland, i wanted to weigh in on this and say i find the openness and personal access to and from some of the tech people at MM to be right on track in a variety of aspects, and very helpful - good for everyone. I wouldn't want to see a hollow unfair influence argument dampening that. If you follow that argument to its conclusion, then anyone in the community that gains a reputation of being experienced and knowledgeable should hide everything that they are doing from the rest of us so that we are not unduly influenced. And that's just a negative spiral for everyone involved and does not make sense at all. Nando Well, in the interest of putting this thread to bed, let me try to wrap things up by saying that when Sean comes back, I will discuss this issue with him.Although I don't have a problem with Macromedia's web team using Mach II or Sean contributing to Mach II development, his actions should not be interpreted as an official Macromedia endorsement of any one project over another. Christian [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
RE: Macromedia.com running under Mach II ...
I definitely see you point, Nando, but at the same time, the amazing fixation our society has on sueing eachother over frivolities demands such asinine disclaimers to pervade our discussions.Have you ever checked out the signatures of certain people who post to the list?I started seeing one recently that was two full paragraphs long, and there are several others that are a paragraph.I'm not counting the ones that are contact info or marketing, just the disclaimers. Also worth noting that Sean is one of the few (only?) high-profile Macromedians who doesn't use the MM blog system in favor of paying for his own hosting on a separate server.He does this specifically so he's NOT under MM's thumb about what he says on his site and blog.I don't know if that was a Sean instigated position from the get go, or if he started being opinionated and MM told him to cool it.It doesn't matter, though. The point is that they have concerns over what the public view of their opinions are as a company.It's definitely a valid concern.All Christian was saying is that what Sean says is what Sean says, it's not necessarily what Macromedia says.Chances are good that they are one and the same, particularly on things of a technical nature regarding MM projects. Consider if you said that the software your company develops is top of the line stuff, perfectly suited to what it's designed for.Then you also said that you like to eat cats.Your company would want protection from the latter, even if it meant losing the potentially valuable endorsement of the former statement. Cheers, barneyb -Original Message- From: Nando [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2004 9:13 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: Macromedia.com running under Mach II ... Christian, Sorry to wake this one up again ... but your statement here really concerned me. I've struggled on and off nearly the whole day trying to get subscribed to this list so that my posts go through. Let's see if it works this time ... snip ... when Sean comes back, I will discuss this issue with him... his actions should not be interpreted as an official Macromedia endorsement of any one project over another. /snip How would you manage these interpretations? How can anyone do that? All you can do is make yourself or your company or your project as bland as possible, a white wall in a white room, in a misguided effort to cut down on interpretation. In the end it just doesn't work - those who want in a certain moment to interpret will still interpret. In fact, in my experience, they (we) will interpret more. I personally appreciate the added color these days, the more personal access from people working at MM. And i think a lot of other people do as well. It is true that at times personal preferences will show through in what you guys present, but i would MUCH MUCH rather have a chance to take a good look at the personal preferences of some of theexperienced and talented people who are working at Macromedia, than be shielded from them in an effort to be neutral. If neutrality is a virtue in this regard, then Michael here on his own list should be equally careful professing opinions and preferences (about Macromedia's use of frameworks for instance), because his opinion of course carries more weight than someone like me. Likewise, Matt is the president of a software company. Matt's opinions certainly carry more weight in the innocent blue eyes of more junior developers like myself. Why is Montara Software or House of Fusion any different from Macromedia in this regard? They aren't. The way this thread presents the issue makes it look like IF Sean and his team had decided to use the Mach-II framework because they thought it technically the best decision, (and i'm sure they made the decision on technical merits, because no other motive makes any sense for them at all - ie, THEY were not susceptible to being unduly influenced by Macromedia's use of Mach-II) ... THEN they should have hidden the fact from us. Does that help anyone? Does encouraging a policy of hiding what you know and do because you are talented and experienced - and therefore your reputation carries a certain added weight of validity - balance anything? Make anything fair? Is that moral somehow? I don't think so. So before this thread drifts off into dreamland, i wanted to weigh in on this and say i find the openness and personal access to and from some of the tech people at MM to be right on track in a variety of aspects, and very helpful - good for everyone. I wouldn't want to see a hollow unfair influence argument dampening that. If you follow that argument to its conclusion, then anyone in the community that gains a reputation of being experienced and knowledgeable should hide everything that they are doing from the rest of us so that we are not unduly influenced. And that's
RE: Macromedia.com running under Mach II ...
Yeah, i think i just wanted to point out that Sean hasn't come anywhere close to the point of saying that he eats his cats. All he's done is describe in as much detail as he is allowed by company policy how a certain portion of macromedia.com is coded, and publically made available the guidelines he and his team used for that and a small sample of code demonstrating how he prefers to handle persistance and data access. I don't see that as opinionated - it's just factual with a welcome dash of openness. Maybe it begins to look opinionated in the shadow cast by others' opinions. But i don't see how one could categorize Sean's blog or posts as characteristically opinionated. They aren't, any more than your posts are opinionated when you state things like 'var' scoped variables don't die when the function exits, the reference to them is what dies. I find Sean's posts and writings as balanced in the options they present and as factual as they could be. Sure, often in programming there are varying approaches to the same goal, but those approaches are both facts. If we delete the facts from such statements, then there's nothing left. Then you would have to write things like ... 'var' scoped variables may behave differently than you think they might, but it would be best if you find out for yourself. That's not going to help anyone. Not you, not me, not your company. Here's a disclaimer you can put on the bottom of your email, since you don't seem to have one yet and it seems like you certainly need one, because you often seem to know what you're talking about and come up with lots of good ideas and suggestions. It covers the eventuality that someone may read one of your posts online. If you are offended by coding guidelines or best practice statements or suggestions, or under the age of 21, or if viewing coding guidelines or best practice statements or suggestions is illegal in the state or country in which you reside, please leave this site or delete this email immediately. Ok ... i've said what i wanted to say. :) nando -Original Message- From: Barney Boisvert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2004 6:37 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Macromedia.com running under Mach II ... I definitely see you point, Nando, but at the same time, the amazing fixation our society has on sueing eachother over frivolities demands such asinine disclaimers to pervade our discussions.Have you ever checked out the signatures of certain people who post to the list?I started seeing one recently that was two full paragraphs long, and there are several others that are a paragraph.I'm not counting the ones that are contact info or marketing, just the disclaimers. Also worth noting that Sean is one of the few (only?) high-profile Macromedians who doesn't use the MM blog system in favor of paying for his own hosting on a separate server.He does this specifically so he's NOT under MM's thumb about what he says on his site and blog.I don't know if that was a Sean instigated position from the get go, or if he started being opinionated and MM told him to cool it.It doesn't matter, though. The point is that they have concerns over what the public view of their opinions are as a company.It's definitely a valid concern.All Christian was saying is that what Sean says is what Sean says, it's not necessarily what Macromedia says.Chances are good that they are one and the same, particularly on things of a technical nature regarding MM projects. Consider if you said that the software your company develops is top of the line stuff, perfectly suited to what it's designed for.Then you also said that you like to eat cats.Your company would want protection from the latter, even if it meant losing the potentially valuable endorsement of the former statement. Cheers, barneyb -Original Message- From: Nando [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2004 9:13 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: Macromedia.com running under Mach II ... Christian, Sorry to wake this one up again ... but your statement here really concerned me. I've struggled on and off nearly the whole day trying to get subscribed to this list so that my posts go through. Let's see if it works this time ... snip ... when Sean comes back, I will discuss this issue with him... his actions should not be interpreted as an official Macromedia endorsement of any one project over another. /snip How would you manage these interpretations? How can anyone do that? All you can do is make yourself or your company or your project as bland as possible, a white wall in a white room, in a misguided effort to cut down on interpretation. In the end it just doesn't work - those who want in a certain moment to interpret will still interpret. In fact, in my experience, they (we) will interpret more. I personally appreciate the added color these days, the more personal access from people working at MM. And i think a lot of other
Re: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II
Perhaps Sean needs to make it more clear that his team's decision should not be considered an endorsement from the company he works for. Sounds fair enough.I'm sure he will be happy to clarify the situation when he gets back. I think this is the critical point. For me, having followed Sean's blog since a long time, it's not a problem, but I feel it can cause confusion and be potentially misleading. I actually have seen a few fellow CF developers perceiving the fact that the Code Guidelines and the Mach II guide are on MM's Livedocs server as an official endorsement from MM. A specific disclaimer could be a good idea. Massimo Foti http://www.massimocorner.com Co-Author of Dreamweaver MX 2004 Magic: http://www.dwmagic.com/ [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
RE: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II
This assumes the MachII wasn't the best solution for them. If it was, then rebuiling from scratch would have been a waste of time. It seems like MACR is screwed. Whatever code they use will be assumed to be best, even though a good developer knows that what works for one situation will not be best for another. This entire thread is probably the biggest waste of time I've seen on this list (and yea, I know I'm adding to it). If MACR chose the best code for their site, that should be the end of it. -Raymond Camden I understand the tradeoff. I'm just saying that MM is big enough with enough money and skilled programmers to write some of the tightest, fastest, most optimized code around if they wanted to. The extra few dollars to make the code 'fast but inflexibility' (it really isn't inflexible, it's just specific to the needs of the MM site) is worth it to avoid what started this entire thread. To have anyone see an error on a website, let alone for there to be an error in the first place is just not acceptable (in my mind when thinking of a multi-million dollar internet software company). There is almost always a trade-off between flexibility, abstraction, etc. and performance, but one typically tries to strike the right balance between the two extremes.The right balance typically falls between the cost of extending and maintaining a fast but inflexibility application, and the cost of having to throw hardware or other optimizations as a slow but highly configurable application.I'm certain Sean's team understands this equation and has made their decisions accordingly. Christian [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
Re: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II
Well, in the interest of putting this thread to bed, let me try to wrap things up by saying that when Sean comes back, I will discuss this issue with him.Although I don't have a problem with Macromedia's web team using Mach II or Sean contributing to Mach II development, his actions should not be interpreted as an official Macromedia endorsement of any one project over another. Christian On Feb 9, 2004, at 1:56 AM, Michael Dinowitz wrote: I understand the tradeoff. I'm just saying that MM is big enough with enough money and skilled programmers to write some of the tightest, fastest, most optimized code around if they wanted to. The extra few dollars to make the code 'fast but inflexibility' (it really isn't inflexible, it's just specific to the needs of the MM site) is worth it to avoid what started this entire thread. To have anyone see an error on a website, let alone for there to be an error in the first place is just not acceptable (in my mind when thinking of a multi-million dollar internet software company). There is almost always a trade-off between flexibility, abstraction, etc. and performance, but one typically tries to strike the right balance between the two extremes. The right balance typically falls between the cost of extending and maintaining a fast but inflexibility application, and the cost of having to throw hardware or other optimizations as a slow but highly configurable application. I'm certain Sean's team understands this equation and has made their decisions accordingly. Christian [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
RE: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II
I think this is another example of where *you* believe Macromedia screwed up. No disrepect meant here Christian, but there are a few of us here who are of the opinion that MM selecting MachII to use on their site is a glowing endorsement of the framework It sounds like MM's way of saying Hey, if you want a HIGH traffic site, then you should use MachII rather than the others As Matt and Michael have said, the framework has code which isn't required, and using it means that you've got bloat code which is going to slow down the site (a fraction) and cause complications which aren't necessary The size of MM with their resources should have allowed them to build something from scratch which did the job perfectly, had no superfluous code and was optimized to the hilt would have made a better impression of the product as your pages would be the best they possibly could, rather than using MachII's coding/template structure That's my opinion anyways, and it probably means nothing to MM itself as Sean and his team have already built the site using MachII, so it's a moot point [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
RE: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II
As Matt and Michael have said, the framework has code which isn't required, and using it means that you've got bloat code which is going to slow down the site (a fraction) and cause complications which aren't necessary I think this is an inescapable outcome whenever any generic framework is used. The point of using a framework isn't to maximize performance, but to maximize ease of maintenance. If Mach II does that sufficiently, it's a good choice for the MM site or any other. Personally, I'm not entirely sold on Mach II yet, but I think it may be a suitable framework for CFMX applications. The size of MM with their resources should have allowed them to build something from scratch which did the job perfectly, had no superfluous code and was optimized to the hilt would have made a better impression of the product as your pages would be the best they possibly could, rather than using MachII's coding/template structure Sure, they could have done this, but I don't know that it would have been the right choice. Keep in mind that the expenses they accrue are reflected in the cost of the software you buy. There's no such thing as a free lunch. Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ phone: 202-797-5496 fax: 202-797-5444 [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
RE: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II
I hear this secret sauce argument all the time and frankly think it is without merit. I have never walked into an organization and had trouble hitting the ground running because I had never seen the methodology, framework, or style in use at that organization. [stacy] There's a big difference between you and an average developer getting up to speed on grunt work in a web app though. ;) It's been my experience that most average, competent developers have no trouble with those issues either, just as American visitors to England have little trouble remembering to drive on the other side of the road. Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ phone: 202-797-5496 fax: 202-797-5444 [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
RE: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II
For years, Fusebox has been criticized by those who stand at a distance and throw stones at it while refusing to contribute or become involved in improvements to it. While this would characterize my actions with regard to Fusebox, it would also characterize my actions with regard to Soviet communism. Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ phone: 202-797-5496 fax: 202-797-5444 [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
Re: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II
Philip Arnold wrote: The size of MM with their resources should have allowed them to build something from scratch which did the job perfectly, had no superfluous code and was optimized to the hilt would have made a better impression of the product as your pages would be the best they possibly could, rather than using MachII's coding/template structure I suspect that MM's web team is as time-poor as the rest of the web teams out there.Working at Macromedia doesn't remove the pressure of a deadline or solve resourcing shortages.They're using Mach-II for some smaller apps they need to build beyond the Dylan65 architecture. That's my opinion anyways, and it probably means nothing to MM itself as Sean and his team have already built the site using MachII, so it's a moot point. No.The point is not moot. Macromedia.com is *not* built in Mach-II.The Dylan65 project was released well in advance of Mach-II emerging as a framework.Mach-II is being used for some specific point-applications on the website. How do I know all this?I actually bother to read Sean's blog: http://www.corfield.org/blog/past/2003_11.html#000203 -- geoff http://www.daemon.com.au/ [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
Re: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II
On Feb 9, 2004, at 9:09 AM, Philip Arnold wrote: No disrepect meant here Christian, but there are a few of us here who are of the opinion that MM selecting MachII to use on their site is a glowing endorsement of the framework Point taken.I was referring specifically to the statement that Macromedia screwed up by using Mach II.My impression is that very few people actually have a problem with this, however I also acknowledge that we should be more clear about the fact that we are not officially endorsing any particular project over another.When Sean gets back into town, I will discuss this with him. Christian [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
Re: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II
On Feb 9, 2004, at 10:02 AM, Geoff Bowers wrote: Macromedia.com is *not* built in Mach-II. The Dylan65 project was released well in advance of Mach-II emerging as a framework. Mach-II is being used for some specific point-applications on the website. Thanks for bringing this up, Geoff.This is a very important point. Mach II is something the web team experimented with, found increased their productivity, and now uses for some projects.It is NOT the framework used for Macromedia.com. Christian [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
Re: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II
On Feb 9, 2004, at 9:56 AM, Angus McFee wrote: Macromedia would be better off using no framework at all. Let's face it, a framework is just a loosely connected group of ideas anyways, that offers a temporary development efficency until something new comes along. I guess frameworks mean different things to different people. Personally, I can't imagine building any application without some sort of framework, even a very small and lightweight one.I have found that frameworks (not specifically Mach II, but frameworks in general) make development much more efficient, and applications easier to extend and maintain.However, this should not be interpreted as a Macromedia endorsement for frameworks in general.:) Christian [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
Macromedia.com is *not* built on Mach-II
Macromedia.com is *not* built on Mach II.It is built with a custom framework called Dylan65.Mach-II is being used for some very specific applications.Please bother to read Sean Corfields blog.For example: http://www.corfield.org/blog/past/2003_11.html#000203 Dylan65 was released to production in Feb 2003.How long do people think MM has been running on CFMX??? Is using Mach-II for production at MM an endorsement of the technology? Of course -- officially or unofficially, who cares?It appears to work there, and appears to work well for what they want.Mach-II follows a standard design pattern -- if they wanted that design pattern should they build it again or contribute to an existing community group that has already got much of the way??Would any other commercial team of developers have done differently?? -- geoff http://www.daemon.com.au/ [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
Re: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II
- Original Message - From: Philip Arnold [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, February 09, 2004 7:09 AM Subject: RE: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II I think this is another example of where *you* believe Macromedia screwed up. No disrepect meant here Christian, but there are a few of us here who are of the opinion that MM selecting MachII to use on their site is a glowing endorsement of the framework but...MM didn't select MachII to use on their site.Sean and his team selected MachII to use on the parts of MM's site that they are responsible for.Unless I misunderstand the dynamic, that doesn't represent MM and their entire site/corporation (?). Nowhere on MM's site does it say, Proudly built with Mach-II, or Now with 75% more Mach-II, or anything that would imply that MM as a company is endorsing the framework. Sure, I take the use of MachII as a glowing endorsement by Sean of the framework, but that's hardly been kept a secret, as Sean's involvement has been out in the open from the get-go. As far as the various comments regarding Sean's coding standards document, I can absolutely see where people could mistake this for The Gospel according to MM.However, there are no links (that I am aware of) from the livedocs (or anywhere else on MM's site) to this document.It does not say anywhere on the document that this is The Gospel according to MM.Even so, I concede that it's easy enough to misinterpret, and the document should be presented (to the public, at least) from Sean's personal site. I'm gonna side with the folks who have suggested that MM is in a no-win situation here.If they had created their own framework, people would have been clamoring for it to be made public, as it would be taken as the right way to code CF.If they implemented no framework whatsoever, they would have lost whatever advantages the framework provides (faster development, easier development within a group, etc). When it comes right down to brass tacks, the MM site is no different than any other Web site.It is there to convey information, and gather feedback. The method by which that end is accomplished should be up to the developers, as it is up to us with our own sites. Charlie [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
RE: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II
Comments inline... _ From: Michael Dinowitz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, February 09, 2004 1:57 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II I understand the tradeoff. I'm just saying that MM is big enough with enough money and skilled programmers to write some of the tightest, fastest, most optimized code around if they wanted to. [Stacy Young] No matter how big the company I don't believe it's every justified to throw away money when you don't have to...and given your line of reasoning they might as well throw out Java and re-write at a lower level for a more optimized solution! The extra few dollars to make the code 'fast but inflexibility' (it really isn't inflexible, it's just specific to the needs of the MM site) is worth it to avoid what started this entire thread. [Stacy Young] 99.9% of the world doesn't give a hoot about this topic. The handful that do are most likely limited to this thread and/or avid readers of Seans blog cause it's not published anywhere else to any great extent. To have anyone see an error on a website, let alone for there to be an error in the first place is just not acceptable (in my mind when thinking of a multi-million dollar internet software company). [Stacy Young] I agree...as I'm sure most folks would that were involved with building the site/application. I'm sure it will be addressed. AVIS IMPORTANT: --- Les informations contenues dans le present document et ses pieces jointes sont strictement confidentielles et reservees a l'usage de la (des) personne(s) a qui il est adresse. Si vous n'etes pas le destinataire, soyez avise que toute divulgation, distribution, copie, ou autre utilisation de ces informations est strictement prohibee. Si vous avez recu ce document par erreur, veuillez s'il vous plait communiquer immediatement avec l'expediteur et detruire ce document sans en faire de copie sous quelque forme. WARNING: --- The information contained in this document and attachments is confidential and intended only for the person(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or any other use of the information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this document by mistake, please notify the sender immediately and destroy this document and attachments without making any copy of any kind. [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
RE: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II
so that's why people keep yelling at me when I go out.All this time I thought I had a headlight out. ~Simon Simon Horwith CTO, Etrilogy Ltd. Member of Team Macromedia Macromedia Certified Instructor Certified Advanced ColdFusion MX Developer Certified Flash MX Developer CFDJList - List Administrator http://www.how2cf.com/ -Original Message- From: Dave Watts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 09 February 2004 14:33 To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II I hear this secret sauce argument all the time and frankly think it is without merit. I have never walked into an organization and had trouble hitting the ground running because I had never seen the methodology, framework, or style in use at that organization. [stacy] There's a big difference between you and an average developer getting up to speed on grunt work in a web app though. ;) It's been my experience that most average, competent developers have no trouble with those issues either, just as American visitors to England have little trouble remembering to drive on the other side of the road. Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ phone: 202-797-5496 fax: 202-797-5444 [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
RE: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II
...and if you changed the road configuration between every visit would it take longer for an American visitor to get where they're going? I'm not saying the 'average joe' is not capable...I'm suggesting there are additional costs associated with constantly dealing with changing frameworks. -Stace -Original Message- From: Dave Watts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 09 February 2004 14:33 To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II I hear this secret sauce argument all the time and frankly think it is without merit. I have never walked into an organization and had trouble hitting the ground running because I had never seen the methodology, framework, or style in use at that organization. [stacy] There's a big difference between you and an average developer getting up to speed on grunt work in a web app though. ;) It's been my experience that most average, competent developers have no trouble with those issues either, just as American visitors to England have little trouble remembering to drive on the other side of the road. Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ phone: 202-797-5496 fax: 202-797-5444 _ [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
RE: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II
Just because the framework is changing doesn't mean that you have to keep up to date.I've still got a couple Fusebox 4 apps that are running beta cores, because I don't want/need to update them.I've also got apps running CF4.5 servers that have no need of CFMX or even CF5 functions. You're absolutely right that keeping an app up to date on a framework is expensive, but it's also frequently unneccessary, so the cost is irrelevant. Cheers, barneyb -Original Message- From: Stacy Young [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, February 09, 2004 1:07 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II ...and if you changed the road configuration between every visit would it take longer for an American visitor to get where they're going? I'm not saying the 'average joe' is not capable...I'm suggesting there are additional costs associated with constantly dealing with changing frameworks. -Stace -Original Message- From: Dave Watts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 09 February 2004 14:33 To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II I hear this secret sauce argument all the time and frankly think it is without merit. I have never walked into an organization and had trouble hitting the ground running because I had never seen the methodology, framework, or style in use at that organization. [stacy] There's a big difference between you and an average developer getting up to speed on grunt work in a web app though. ;) It's been my experience that most average, competent developers have no trouble with those issues either, just as American visitors to England have little trouble remembering to drive on the other side of the road. Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ phone: 202-797-5496 fax: 202-797-5444 _ [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
RE: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II
I am surprised to see that Macromedia is using Mach II.Don't know quite how I feel about that.Personally, with the new CFMX 6.1 CFC's and such things as fuse box, etc. really are not needed.What is of more interest is the crash and exposing the error to visitors.Nice. // Jaye Morris | Principal Design Technologist // jayeZERO.com | a design studio // [EMAIL PROTECTED] | www.jayeZERO.com [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
RE: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II
For some reason the graphic got stripped out of the attachment.Darn. // Jaye Morris | Principal Design Technologist // jayeZERO.com | a design studio // [EMAIL PROTECTED] | www.jayeZERO.com _ From: Jaye Morris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2004 10:57 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II I am surprised to see that Macromedia is using Mach II.Don't know quite how I feel about that.Personally, with the new CFMX 6.1 CFC's and such things as fuse box, etc. really are not needed.What is of more interest is the crash and exposing the error to visitors.Nice. // Jaye Morris | Principal Design Technologist // jayeZERO.com | a design studio // [EMAIL PROTECTED] | www.jayeZERO.com _ [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
RE: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II
For some reason the graphic got stripped out of the attachment.Darn. The HoF lists are attachment free to stop any kind of virus spreads [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
Re: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II
things as fuse box, etc. really are not needed. How familiar are you with Mach II and things such as Fusebox? Have you actively used them yourself? Ken [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
RE: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II
Yep. Tried and tested. Found unnecessary.That is the elegant beauty of CF. // Jaye Morris | Principal Design Technologist // jayeZERO.com | a design studio // [EMAIL PROTECTED] | www.jayeZERO.com _ From: Ken Wilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2004 11:31 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II things as fuse box, etc. really are not needed. How familiar are you with Mach II and things such as Fusebox? Have you actively used them yourself? Ken _ [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
RE: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II
Ken, Just wanted to clarify why I made the point in the first place.The deal was, I went to check out sites of the day. Buddha boom, budda bing, the page is crashed.*I* seethe error page and notice that it's running on Mach II.Now here is what I am actually Thinking.Some time ago, I attended Macromedia CF classes with Fig Leaf in Washington D.C. (shameless plug for them, but they did a great job and I was very pleased).The approved Macromedia training talks about Macromedia Development methods.Not Fuse-box, or Mach II (though in reality I have nothing against either. I just find them not necessary.Said another way, you could wear a jacket outside, but you don't have to.it's a matter of personal choice).The argument goes, We teach you one way (roughly 1,000 per person per class. hotel, food, beer not included), but we will use something different in real world practice.That is comparative to Microsoft doing MS Office and building it all on someone else's controls.I just find that a bit odd.It also implies that the suggested application development methods (just take a look at the applications development guide that came with your CFMX CD-ROM) is not actually the best method.If that is the case, then Macromedia should be supporting the most sound application development methods that in their documentation. // Jaye Morris | Principal Design Technologist // jayeZERO.com | a design studio // [EMAIL PROTECTED] | www.jayeZERO.com _ From: Ken Wilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2004 11:31 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II things as fuse box, etc. really are not needed. How familiar are you with Mach II and things such as Fusebox? Have you actively used them yourself? Ken _ [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
RE: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II
-Original Message- From: Jaye Morris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2004 9:47 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II Yep. Tried and tested. Found unnecessary.That is the elegant beauty of CF. And with all due respect, that's your opinion and you're entitled to it. However, others may disagree, and they are entitled to do so as well. While CFCs may help to encapsulate your code, they have never been presented as a full 'framework', which is where MachII and FB come in. This, btw, is coming from somebody who uses neither FB or MachII.However, I don't begrudge anybody else their right to do so. Charlie [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
RE: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II
Jaye, You can program things from scratch all the time or you can use frameworks and available resources to make the program more efficiently.The official curriculum is always going to be about the base functionality of a language. You have to go outside that to learn about frameworks and extensions.The same is true in all languages.The official Sun curriculum teaches you how to develop Java apps and never mentions the tons of available open-source projects and frameworks available.However, a very large portion of Java projects will use Apache Struts as their framework as it provides functionality you don't need to redevelop. Besides, it's no surprise that MM is using Mach-II since Sean Corfield has been blogging about it for a while. Sam --- Blog: http://www.rewindlife.com Charts: http://www.blinex.com/products/charting --- -Original Message- From: Jaye Morris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2004 12:17 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II Ken, Just wanted to clarify why I made the point in the first place.The deal was, I went to check out sites of the day. Buddha boom, budda bing, the page is crashed.*I* seethe error page and notice that it's running on Mach II.Now here is what I am actually Thinking.Some time ago, I attended Macromedia CF classes with Fig Leaf in Washington D.C. (shameless plug for them, but they did a great job and I was very pleased).The approved Macromedia training talks about Macromedia Development methods.Not Fuse-box, or Mach II (though in reality I have nothing against either. I just find them not necessary. Said another way, you could wear a jacket outside, but you don't have to.it's a matter of personal choice).The argument goes, We teach you one way (roughly 1,000 per person per class. hotel, food, beer not included), but we will use something different in real world practice.That is comparative to Microsoft doing MS Office and building it all on someone else's controls.I just find that a bit odd.It also implies that the suggested application development methods (just take a look at the applications development guide that came with your CFMX CD-ROM) is not actually the best method. If that is the case, then Macromedia should be supporting the most sound application development methods that in their documentation. // Jaye Morris | Principal Design Technologist // jayeZERO.com | a design studio // [EMAIL PROTECTED] | www.jayeZERO.com [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
RE: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II
Clearly understood and acknowledged. // Jaye Morris | Principal Design Technologist // jayeZERO.com | a design studio // [EMAIL PROTECTED] | www.jayeZERO.com _ From: Samuel R. Neff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2004 12:24 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II Jaye, You can program things from scratch all the time or you can use frameworks and available resources to make the program more efficiently.The official curriculum is always going to be about the base functionality of a language. You have to go outside that to learn about frameworks and extensions.The same is true in all languages.The official Sun curriculum teaches you how to develop Java apps and never mentions the tons of available open-source projects and frameworks available.However, a very large portion of Java projects will use Apache Struts as their framework as it provides functionality you don't need to redevelop. Besides, it's no surprise that MM is using Mach-II since Sean Corfield has been blogging about it for a while. Sam --- Blog: http://www.rewindlife.com Charts: http://www.blinex.com/products/charting --- -Original Message- From: Jaye Morris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2004 12:17 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II Ken, Just wanted to clarify why I made the point in the first place.The deal was, I went to check out sites of the day. Buddha boom, budda bing, the page is crashed.*I* seethe error page and notice that it's running on Mach II.Now here is what I am actually Thinking.Some time ago, I attended Macromedia CF classes with Fig Leaf in Washington D.C. (shameless plug for them, but they did a great job and I was very pleased).The approved Macromedia training talks about Macromedia Development methods.Not Fuse-box, or Mach II (though in reality I have nothing against either. I just find them not necessary. Said another way, you could wear a jacket outside, but you don't have to.it's a matter of personal choice).The argument goes, We teach you one way (roughly 1,000 per person per class. hotel, food, beer not included), but we will use something different in real world practice.That is comparative to Microsoft doing MS Office and building it all on someone else's controls.I just find that a bit odd.It also implies that the suggested application development methods (just take a look at the applications development guide that came with your CFMX CD-ROM) is not actually the best method. If that is the case, then Macromedia should be supporting the most sound application development methods that in their documentation. // Jaye Morris | Principal Design Technologist // jayeZERO.com | a design studio // [EMAIL PROTECTED] | www.jayeZERO.com _ [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
Re: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II
Of course, there is the point of view that Sun doesn't promote the use of any one framework or methodology. In fact, they don't even imply their preferred framework by making use of one. Further, even if any particular Java vendor promoted a specific framework it wouldn't have implications for the whole community since there is more than one vendor. At this point in time, the CFML community hasn't really accepted the multi-vendor paradigm we now find ourselves in. Thus, when Macromedia even implies a favorite that tells the community something very important. Personally, I think Macromedia would do better to stay away from getting involved with frameworks, methodologies, and standards. It is a no win situation since whichever effort they support, the other efforts will feel slighted. It shouldn't be that way... Macromedia should want to support everything and anything that the CFML community produces, but of course it is impossible to support everything. Therefore, they shouldn't support anything in particular. I think Sean Corfield's coding standards document is a perfect example of where a useful contribution has turned into something else entirely. There are many people who now consider the content of those documents to be official from Macromedia, which can't be further from the truth. Those documents didn't take into account the communities point of view; they were decided on by Sean and his team. Further, they don't even match the conventions used in CF's documentation over the years. -Matt On Feb 8, 2004, at 12:24 PM, Samuel R. Neff wrote: Jaye, You can program things from scratch all the time or you can use frameworks and available resources to make the program more efficiently. The official curriculum is always going to be about the base functionality of a language. You have to go outside that to learn about frameworks and extensions. The same is true in all languages. The official Sun curriculum teaches you how to develop Java apps and never mentions the tons of available open-source projects and frameworks available. However, a very large portion of Java projects will use Apache Struts as their framework as it provides functionality you don't need to redevelop. Besides, it's no surprise that MM is using Mach-II since Sean Corfield has been blogging about it for a while. Sam --- Blog: http://www.rewindlife.com Charts: http://www.blinex.com/products/charting --- -Original Message- From: Jaye Morris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2004 12:17 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II Ken, Just wanted to clarify why I made the point in the first place. The deal was, I went to check out sites of the day. Buddha boom, budda bing, the page is crashed. *I* see the error page and notice that it's running on Mach II. Now here is what I am actually Thinking. Some time ago, I attended Macromedia CF classes with Fig Leaf in Washington D.C. (shameless plug for them, but they did a great job and I was very pleased). The approved Macromedia training talks about Macromedia Development methods. Not Fuse-box, or Mach II (though in reality I have nothing against either. I just find them not necessary. Said another way, you could wear a jacket outside, but you don't have to.it's a matter of personal choice). The argument goes, We teach you one way (roughly 1,000 per person per class. hotel, food, beer not included), but we will use something different in real world practice. That is comparative to Microsoft doing MS Office and building it all on someone else's controls. I just find that a bit odd. It also implies that the suggested application development methods (just take a look at the applications development guide that came with your CFMX CD-ROM) is not actually the best method. If that is the case, then Macromedia should be supporting the most sound application development methods that in their documentation. // Jaye Morris | Principal Design Technologist // jayeZERO.com | a design studio // [EMAIL PROTECTED] | www.jayeZERO.com [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
RE: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II
I think there's a difference between coming out and supporting a framework/standard/whatever and using it themselves.Simply using a framework for a portion of their own applications is not like they're saying everyone should use it.Quite to the contrary, none of the DRK code uses fusebox or Mach-II and that's much more of an insight into Macromedia's considered best practices (at least on the surface). Sam --- Blog: http://www.rewindlife.com Charts: http://www.blinex.com/products/charting --- -Original Message- From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2004 2:05 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II Of course, there is the point of view that Sun doesn't promote the use of any one framework or methodology. In fact, they don't even imply their preferred framework by making use of one. Further, even if any particular Java vendor promoted a specific framework it wouldn't have implications for the whole community since there is more than one vendor. At this point in time, the CFML community hasn't really accepted the multi-vendor paradigm we now find ourselves in. Thus, when Macromedia even implies a favorite that tells the community something very important. Personally, I think Macromedia would do better to stay away from getting involved with frameworks, methodologies, and standards. It is a no win situation since whichever effort they support, the other efforts will feel slighted. It shouldn't be that way... Macromedia should want to support everything and anything that the CFML community produces, but of course it is impossible to support everything. Therefore, they shouldn't support anything in particular. I think Sean Corfield's coding standards document is a perfect example of where a useful contribution has turned into something else entirely. There are many people who now consider the content of those documents to be official from Macromedia, which can't be further from the truth. Those documents didn't take into account the communities point of view; they were decided on by Sean and his team. Further, they don't even match the conventions used in CF's documentation over the years. -Matt [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
RE: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II
my understanding is that some parts of Macromedia.com are using it - not all, and that the reason is that Sean got interested in it and so they decided to try it out in a production environment.This is all heresay of course.Beest to wait until Sean's back from vacation and let him comment on it himself. ~Simon Simon Horwith CTO, Etrilogy Ltd. Member of Team Macromedia Macromedia Certified Instructor Certified Advanced ColdFusion MX Developer Certified Flash MX Developer CFDJList - List Administrator http://www.how2cf.com/ -Original Message- From: Samuel R. Neff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 08 February 2004 17:24 To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II Jaye, You can program things from scratch all the time or you can use frameworks and available resources to make the program more efficiently.The official curriculum is always going to be about the base functionality of a language. You have to go outside that to learn about frameworks and extensions.The same is true in all languages.The official Sun curriculum teaches you how to develop Java apps and never mentions the tons of available open-source projects and frameworks available.However, a very large portion of Java projects will use Apache Struts as their framework as it provides functionality you don't need to redevelop. Besides, it's no surprise that MM is using Mach-II since Sean Corfield has been blogging about it for a while. Sam --- Blog: http://www.rewindlife.com Charts: http://www.blinex.com/products/charting --- -Original Message- From: Jaye Morris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2004 12:17 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II Ken, Just wanted to clarify why I made the point in the first place.The deal was, I went to check out sites of the day. Buddha boom, budda bing, the page is crashed.*I* seethe error page and notice that it's running on Mach II.Now here is what I am actually Thinking.Some time ago, I attended Macromedia CF classes with Fig Leaf in Washington D.C. (shameless plug for them, but they did a great job and I was very pleased).The approved Macromedia training talks about Macromedia Development methods.Not Fuse-box, or Mach II (though in reality I have nothing against either. I just find them not necessary. Said another way, you could wear a jacket outside, but you don't have to.it's a matter of personal choice).The argument goes, We teach you one way (roughly 1,000 per person per class. hotel, food, beer not included), but we will use something different in real world practice.That is comparative to Microsoft doing MS Office and building it all on someone else's controls.I just find that a bit odd.It also implies that the suggested application development methods (just take a look at the applications development guide that came with your CFMX CD-ROM) is not actually the best method. If that is the case, then Macromedia should be supporting the most sound application development methods that in their documentation. // Jaye Morris | Principal Design Technologist // jayeZERO.com | a design studio // [EMAIL PROTECTED] | www.jayeZERO.com [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
RE: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II
I can say that as of the last time I spoke with folks at Macromedia, the use of any framework or software on their site is not meant to be taken as an official endorsement of it... which makes sense.I experiment with vendor products on sites I build all the time... it doesn't necessarily mean I endorse them, just that I'm checking out what they have to offer. ~Simon Simon Horwith CTO, Etrilogy Ltd. Member of Team Macromedia Macromedia Certified Instructor Certified Advanced ColdFusion MX Developer Certified Flash MX Developer CFDJList - List Administrator http://www.how2cf.com/ -Original Message- From: Samuel R. Neff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 08 February 2004 19:11 To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II I think there's a difference between coming out and supporting a framework/standard/whatever and using it themselves.Simply using a framework for a portion of their own applications is not like they're saying everyone should use it.Quite to the contrary, none of the DRK code uses fusebox or Mach-II and that's much more of an insight into Macromedia's considered best practices (at least on the surface). Sam --- Blog: http://www.rewindlife.com Charts: http://www.blinex.com/products/charting --- -Original Message- From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2004 2:05 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II Of course, there is the point of view that Sun doesn't promote the use of any one framework or methodology. In fact, they don't even imply their preferred framework by making use of one. Further, even if any particular Java vendor promoted a specific framework it wouldn't have implications for the whole community since there is more than one vendor. At this point in time, the CFML community hasn't really accepted the multi-vendor paradigm we now find ourselves in. Thus, when Macromedia even implies a favorite that tells the community something very important. Personally, I think Macromedia would do better to stay away from getting involved with frameworks, methodologies, and standards. It is a no win situation since whichever effort they support, the other efforts will feel slighted. It shouldn't be that way... Macromedia should want to support everything and anything that the CFML community produces, but of course it is impossible to support everything. Therefore, they shouldn't support anything in particular. I think Sean Corfield's coding standards document is a perfect example of where a useful contribution has turned into something else entirely. There are many people who now consider the content of those documents to be official from Macromedia, which can't be further from the truth. Those documents didn't take into account the communities point of view; they were decided on by Sean and his team. Further, they don't even match the conventions used in CF's documentation over the years. -Matt [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
Re: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II
Well I obviously disagree. The fact they are using a particular framework implies that they choose it as opposed to other frameworks because it was the best. The DRK is another example of where they screwed up as it implies the same thing; that what they ship in the DRK is best of breed. You don't see any of the major programming language vendors doing that for good reason. -Matt On Feb 8, 2004, at 2:10 PM, Samuel R. Neff wrote: I think there's a difference between coming out and supporting a framework/standard/whatever and using it themselves. Simply using a framework for a portion of their own applications is not like they're saying everyone should use it. Quite to the contrary, none of the DRK code uses fusebox or Mach-II and that's much more of an insight into Macromedia's considered best practices (at least on the surface). Sam --- Blog: http://www.rewindlife.com Charts: http://www.blinex.com/products/charting --- -Original Message- From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2004 2:05 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II Of course, there is the point of view that Sun doesn't promote the use of any one framework or methodology. In fact, they don't even imply their preferred framework by making use of one. Further, even if any particular Java vendor promoted a specific framework it wouldn't have implications for the whole community since there is more than one vendor. At this point in time, the CFML community hasn't really accepted the multi-vendor paradigm we now find ourselves in. Thus, when Macromedia even implies a favorite that tells the community something very important. Personally, I think Macromedia would do better to stay away from getting involved with frameworks, methodologies, and standards. It is a no win situation since whichever effort they support, the other efforts will feel slighted. It shouldn't be that way... Macromedia should want to support everything and anything that the CFML community produces, but of course it is impossible to support everything. Therefore, they shouldn't support anything in particular. I think Sean Corfield's coding standards document is a perfect example of where a useful contribution has turned into something else entirely. There are many people who now consider the content of those documents to be official from Macromedia, which can't be further from the truth. Those documents didn't take into account the communities point of view; they were decided on by Sean and his team. Further, they don't even match the conventions used in CF's documentation over the years. -Matt [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
RE: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II
I have to sisagree with you Matt, but for reasons that I can't openly discuss... so it's a mute point.I will say that the fact that they've looked into a framework and found it worth-while enough to implement in a production environment does lend merit to the framework.It shouldn't reflect on other frameworks though... I mean, if Macromedia's never looked into framework-x then the fact that they haven't impleented it anywhere in their site is meaningless. ~Simon Simon Horwith CTO, Etrilogy Ltd. Member of Team Macromedia Macromedia Certified Instructor Certified Advanced ColdFusion MX Developer Certified Flash MX Developer CFDJList - List Administrator http://www.how2cf.com/ -Original Message- From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 08 February 2004 19:19 To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II Well I obviously disagree. The fact they are using a particular framework implies that they choose it as opposed to other frameworks because it was the best. The DRK is another example of where they screwed up as it implies the same thing; that what they ship in the DRK is best of breed. You don't see any of the major programming language vendors doing that for good reason. -Matt On Feb 8, 2004, at 2:10 PM, Samuel R. Neff wrote: I think there's a difference between coming out and supporting a framework/standard/whatever and using it themselves.Simply using a framework for a portion of their own applications is not like they're saying everyone should use it.Quite to the contrary, none of the DRK code uses fusebox or Mach-II and that's much more of an insight into Macromedia's considered best practices (at least on the surface). Sam --- Blog: http://www.rewindlife.com Charts: http://www.blinex.com/products/charting --- -Original Message- From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2004 2:05 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II Of course, there is the point of view that Sun doesn't promote the use of any one framework or methodology. In fact, they don't even imply their preferred framework by making use of one. Further, even if any particular Java vendor promoted a specific framework it wouldn't have implications for the whole community since there is more than one vendor. At this point in time, the CFML community hasn't really accepted the multi-vendor paradigm we now find ourselves in. Thus, when Macromedia even implies a favorite that tells the community something very important. Personally, I think Macromedia would do better to stay away from getting involved with frameworks, methodologies, and standards. It is a no win situation since whichever effort they support, the other efforts will feel slighted. It shouldn't be that way... Macromedia should want to support everything and anything that the CFML community produces, but of course it is impossible to support everything. Therefore, they shouldn't support anything in particular. I think Sean Corfield's coding standards document is a perfect example of where a useful contribution has turned into something else entirely. There are many people who now consider the content of those documents to be official from Macromedia, which can't be further from the truth. Those documents didn't take into account the communities point of view; they were decided on by Sean and his team. Further, they don't even match the conventions used in CF's documentation over the years. -Matt [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
RE: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II
Good points Matt but I have a different point of view.Having architected many ColdFusion applications at many companies, having worked for Allaire and then Macromedia as a Consultant I see ColdFusion from a purely functional standpoint.I definitely see the need for a Framework that is widely dispersed and widely recognized. In my work with Allaire I was exposed to this is our version of Fusebox, it s better at best or we have a framework that John Foo a developer introduced but now hes gone and we dont understand it or whats a framework, we prefer pasta style code or rather thats what he have. There is a definite need for a Framework in most if not all Web Application development.The more ubiquitous it is the better, this will definitely help Web Application design and engineering overall IHMO. As far as Macromedia using a Framework and one that is gaining recognition, I see absolutely no harm in that at all.In addition, if the belief that Sean Corfields coding guidelines are actually Macromedias encourages more developers to use them, there is no harm in that either.Better Web Applications will result from all of this. Kind Regards - Mike Brunt Webapper Services LLC Web Site http://www.webapper.com Blog http://www.webapper.net Webapper Web Application Specialists -Original Message- From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2004 11:05 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II Of course, there is the point of view that Sun doesn't promote the use of any one framework or methodology. In fact, they don't even imply their preferred framework by making use of one. Further, even if any particular Java vendor promoted a specific framework it wouldn't have implications for the whole community since there is more than one vendor. At this point in time, the CFML community hasn't really accepted the multi-vendor paradigm we now find ourselves in. Thus, when Macromedia even implies a favorite that tells the community something very important. Personally, I think Macromedia would do better to stay away from getting involved with frameworks, methodologies, and standards. It is a no win situation since whichever effort they support, the other efforts will feel slighted. It shouldn't be that way... Macromedia should want to support everything and anything that the CFML community produces, but of course it is impossible to support everything. Therefore, they shouldn't support anything in particular. I think Sean Corfield's coding standards document is a perfect example of where a useful contribution has turned into something else entirely. There are many people who now consider the content of those documents to be official from Macromedia, which can't be further from the truth. Those documents didn't take into account the communities point of view; they were decided on by Sean and his team. Further, they don't even match the conventions used in CF's documentation over the years. -Matt On Feb 8, 2004, at 12:24 PM, Samuel R. Neff wrote: Jaye, You can program things from scratch all the time or you can use frameworks and available resources to make the program more efficiently.The official curriculum is always going to be about the base functionality of a language. You have to go outside that to learn about frameworks and extensions.The same is true in all languages.The official Sun curriculum teaches you how to develop Java apps and never mentions the tons of available open-source projects and frameworks available.However, a very large portion of Java projects will use Apache Struts as their framework as it provides functionality you don't need to redevelop. Besides, it's no surprise that MM is using Mach-II since Sean Corfield has been blogging about it for a while. Sam --- Blog: http://www.rewindlife.com Charts: http://www.blinex.com/products/charting --- -Original Message- From: Jaye Morris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2004 12:17 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II Ken, Just wanted to clarify why I made the point in the first place.The deal was, I went to check out sites of the day. Buddha boom, budda bing, the page is crashed.*I* seethe error page and notice that it's running on Mach II.Now here is what I am actually Thinking.Some time ago, I attended Macromedia CF classes with Fig Leaf in Washington D.C. (shameless plug for them, but they did a great job and I was very pleased).The approved Macromedia training talks about Macromedia Development methods.Not Fuse-box, or Mach II (though in reality I have nothing against either. I just find them not necessary. Said another way, you could wear a jacket outside, but you don't have to.it's a matter of personal choice).The argument goes, We teach you one way (roughly 1,000 per person per class
RE: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II
A Macromedia employee's efforts at experimenting with and improving tools/methodologies frequently seen in the user community is definitely a good thing. For years, Fusebox has been criticized by those who stand at a distance and throw stones at it while refusing to contribute or become involved in improvements to it.With Mach-ii, Sean is standing up as an individual and taking a role in it's development, not sitting back and complaining endlessly without contributing anything to it. It's very apparent to me that Macromedia does not officially support Mach-ii.There will always be those who can't see that line, but then there are also those who don't understand alot of things. I'm glad Sean's contributing. -Cameron - Cameron Childress Sumo Consulting Inc --- land:858.509.3098 cell:678.637.5072 aim:cameroncf email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
RE: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II
Guys, my apologies.I was not trying to start something.I was just surprised if for no other reason that I experienced a crashed page on the MM site (give the redundancies, etc.). To notice and see Mach II exposed like that and the fact that was being used by MM got me to thinking.Again that was sort of a surprise because I have thought of Mach II as in an early gestation period (roughly a year old). // Jaye Morris | Principal Design Technologist // jayeZERO.com | a design studio // [EMAIL PROTECTED] | www.jayeZERO.com _ From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2004 2:19 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II Well I obviously disagree. The fact they are using a particular framework implies that they choose it as opposed to other frameworks because it was the best. The DRK is another example of where they screwed up as it implies the same thing; that what they ship in the DRK is best of breed. You don't see any of the major programming language vendors doing that for good reason. -Matt On Feb 8, 2004, at 2:10 PM, Samuel R. Neff wrote: I think there's a difference between coming out and supporting a framework/standard/whatever and using it themselves.Simply using a framework for a portion of their own applications is not like they're saying everyone should use it.Quite to the contrary, none of the DRK code uses fusebox or Mach-II and that's much more of an insight into Macromedia's considered best practices (at least on the surface). Sam --- Blog: http://www.rewindlife.com Charts: http://www.blinex.com/products/charting --- -Original Message- From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2004 2:05 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II Of course, there is the point of view that Sun doesn't promote the use of any one framework or methodology. In fact, they don't even imply their preferred framework by making use of one. Further, even if any particular Java vendor promoted a specific framework it wouldn't have implications for the whole community since there is more than one vendor. At this point in time, the CFML community hasn't really accepted the multi-vendor paradigm we now find ourselves in. Thus, when Macromedia even implies a favorite that tells the community something very important. Personally, I think Macromedia would do better to stay away from getting involved with frameworks, methodologies, and standards. It is a no win situation since whichever effort they support, the other efforts will feel slighted. It shouldn't be that way... Macromedia should want to support everything and anything that the CFML community produces, but of course it is impossible to support everything. Therefore, they shouldn't support anything in particular. I think Sean Corfield's coding standards document is a perfect example of where a useful contribution has turned into something else entirely. There are many people who now consider the content of those documents to be official from Macromedia, which can't be further from the truth. Those documents didn't take into account the communities point of view; they were decided on by Sean and his team. Further, they don't even match the conventions used in CF's documentation over the years. -Matt _ [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
Re: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II
It doesn't matter what the want people to believe; it matters what people actually believe. You and I may make our decisions based on what is best for us and/or the organizations that we work with. However, many others will look at what Macromedia is doing and take that as an endorsement. And not to be mean, but it doesn't matter what you use on your sites; it matters what Macromedia uses. They know it too, why else did they redo the whole thing in CFML in the first place if they weren't aware of it? -Matt On Feb 8, 2004, at 2:12 PM, Simon Horwith wrote: I can say that as of the last time I spoke with folks at Macromedia, the use of any framework or software on their site is not meant to be taken as an official endorsement of it... which makes sense. I experiment with vendor products on sites I build all the time... it doesn't necessarily mean I endorse them, just that I'm checking out what they have to offer. ~Simon Simon Horwith CTO, Etrilogy Ltd. Member of Team Macromedia Macromedia Certified Instructor Certified Advanced ColdFusion MX Developer Certified Flash MX Developer CFDJList - List Administrator http://www.how2cf.com/ -Original Message- From: Samuel R. Neff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 08 February 2004 19:11 To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II I think there's a difference between coming out and supporting a framework/standard/whatever and using it themselves. Simply using a framework for a portion of their own applications is not like they're saying everyone should use it. Quite to the contrary, none of the DRK code uses fusebox or Mach-II and that's much more of an insight into Macromedia's considered best practices (at least on the surface). Sam --- Blog: http://www.rewindlife.com Charts: http://www.blinex.com/products/charting --- -Original Message- From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2004 2:05 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II Of course, there is the point of view that Sun doesn't promote the use of any one framework or methodology. In fact, they don't even imply their preferred framework by making use of one. Further, even if any particular Java vendor promoted a specific framework it wouldn't have implications for the whole community since there is more than one vendor. At this point in time, the CFML community hasn't really accepted the multi-vendor paradigm we now find ourselves in. Thus, when Macromedia even implies a favorite that tells the community something very important. Personally, I think Macromedia would do better to stay away from getting involved with frameworks, methodologies, and standards. It is a no win situation since whichever effort they support, the other efforts will feel slighted. It shouldn't be that way... Macromedia should want to support everything and anything that the CFML community produces, but of course it is impossible to support everything. Therefore, they shouldn't support anything in particular. I think Sean Corfield's coding standards document is a perfect example of where a useful contribution has turned into something else entirely. There are many people who now consider the content of those documents to be official from Macromedia, which can't be further from the truth. Those documents didn't take into account the communities point of view; they were decided on by Sean and his team. Further, they don't even match the conventions used in CF's documentation over the years. -Matt [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
Re: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II
I hear this secret sauce argument all the time and frankly think it is without merit. I have never walked into an organization and had trouble hitting the ground running because I had never seen the methodology, framework, or style in use at that organization. Further, as an architect for many organizations it was my job to design the methodology, framework, and style used in the organizations' applications and I never encountered a solid programmer who had trouble being productive from the beginning. Now all that may be anecdotal evidence and it may be that I have no sense of how things really are, but I don't really think that is the case. IMHO, using the same methodology, framework, or style for every application is a disservice to you and the organization. Every application has different requirements, which should be taken into account before choosing a methodology, framework, or style. What I find to be the most amazing is how people don't make technical decisions in the tech industry. If any industry should have less religion and politics this should be the one. However, that is not the case. People are all too happy to be dogmatic about their language, their methodology, their framework, etc. -Matt On Feb 8, 2004, at 2:29 PM, Mike Brunt wrote: Good points Matt but I have a different point of view. Having architected many ColdFusion applications at many companies, having worked for Allaire and then Macromedia as a Consultant I see ColdFusion from a purely functional standpoint. I definitely see the need for a Framework that is widely dispersed and widely recognized. In my work with Allaire I was exposed to this is our version of Fusebox, it s better at best or we have a framework that John Foo a developer introduced but now hes gone and we dont understand it or whats a framework, we prefer pasta style code or rather thats what he have. There is a definite need for a Framework in most if not all Web Application development. The more ubiquitous it is the better, this will definitely help Web Application design and engineering overall IHMO. As far as Macromedia using a Framework and one that is gaining recognition, I see absolutely no harm in that at all. In addition, if the belief that Sean Corfields coding guidelines are actually Macromedias encourages more developers to use them, there is no harm in that either. Better Web Applications will result from all of this. Kind Regards - Mike Brunt Webapper Services LLC Web Site http://www.webapper.com Blog http://www.webapper.net Webapper Web Application Specialists -Original Message- From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2004 11:05 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II Of course, there is the point of view that Sun doesn't promote the use of any one framework or methodology. In fact, they don't even imply their preferred framework by making use of one. Further, even if any particular Java vendor promoted a specific framework it wouldn't have implications for the whole community since there is more than one vendor. At this point in time, the CFML community hasn't really accepted the multi-vendor paradigm we now find ourselves in. Thus, when Macromedia even implies a favorite that tells the community something very important. Personally, I think Macromedia would do better to stay away from getting involved with frameworks, methodologies, and standards. It is a no win situation since whichever effort they support, the other efforts will feel slighted. It shouldn't be that way... Macromedia should want to support everything and anything that the CFML community produces, but of course it is impossible to support everything. Therefore, they shouldn't support anything in particular. I think Sean Corfield's coding standards document is a perfect example of where a useful contribution has turned into something else entirely. There are many people who now consider the content of those documents to be official from Macromedia, which can't be further from the truth. Those documents didn't take into account the communities point of view; they were decided on by Sean and his team. Further, they don't even match the conventions used in CF's documentation over the years. -Matt On Feb 8, 2004, at 12:24 PM, Samuel R. Neff wrote: Jaye, You can program things from scratch all the time or you can use frameworks and available resources to make the program more efficiently. The official curriculum is always going to be about the base functionality of a language. You have to go outside that to learn about frameworks and extensions. The same is true in all languages. The official Sun curriculum teaches you how to develop Java apps and never mentions the tons of available open-source projects and frameworks available. However, a very large portion of Java projects will use Apache Struts as their framework
RE: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II
For years, Fusebox has been criticized by those who stand at a distance and throw stones at it while refusing to contribute or become involved in improvements to it.With Mach-ii, Sean is standing up as an individual and taking a role in it's development, not sitting back and complaining endlessly without contributing anything to it. I find this a little confusing Why would somebody contribute to something they don't use or dislike? If people don't like the way the framework is laid out, or the way it's designed to be built, then why would they try to use it, which they'd have to do to add to it Using a comparison, what you'd suggest is that vegetarians make meat products rather than throw stones at meat eaters - you're suggesting that they become involved in the industry to improve it rather than complain about it... I tried an early version of FB and it just didn't work for me - by the time it evolved into something usable for my sites, I already had a framework of my own which was heavily in-place - so why would I drop everything I had spent years developing just to contribute to a system I didn't use? [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
RE: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II
There's a difference between Macromedia experimenting with CFML frameworks and their using their own product rather than a competitors to develop their own site... and you're right, some people might think Macromedia.com endorses MACH II or any other technology they use on their own site... but those people are wrong and quite honestly I don't think it's Macromedia's job to go out of their way to make that clear.If you don't see an official endorsement on a product vendors site then it's not officially endorsed.A good example of this is Macromedia's search engine.They don't use verity - they use Google.Does that mean they recommend and endorse the use of Google as opposed to a CFML implementation of Verity?No.It means that there's a time and a place to use one or the other, that their site (most likely due to the huge amount of load their search functionality is under at any given moment and the fct that Google has hardware as well as software solutions, etc.) uses Google for searches makes sense for them.This shouldn't be mistaken for a mark against the use of Verity.Verity is a great product, ColdFusion has a nice easy to use implementation of Verity, and it comes included with ColdFusion right out of the box.It's not right for everyone all the time, but it's sweet and is a solution worth considering and implementing until you have a reason to turn to another vendors solution(s). ~Simon Simon Horwith CTO, Etrilogy Ltd. Member of Team Macromedia Macromedia Certified Instructor Certified Advanced ColdFusion MX Developer Certified Flash MX Developer CFDJList - List Administrator http://www.how2cf.com/ -Original Message- From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 08 February 2004 19:34 To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II It doesn't matter what the want people to believe; it matters what people actually believe. You and I may make our decisions based on what is best for us and/or the organizations that we work with. However, many others will look at what Macromedia is doing and take that as an endorsement. And not to be mean, but it doesn't matter what you use on your sites; it matters what Macromedia uses. They know it too, why else did they redo the whole thing in CFML in the first place if they weren't aware of it? -Matt On Feb 8, 2004, at 2:12 PM, Simon Horwith wrote: I can say that as of the last time I spoke with folks at Macromedia, the use of any framework or software on their site is not meant to be taken as an official endorsement of it... which makes sense.I experiment with vendor products on sites I build all the time... it doesn't necessarily mean I endorse them, just that I'm checking out what they have to offer. ~Simon Simon Horwith CTO, Etrilogy Ltd. Member of Team Macromedia Macromedia Certified Instructor Certified Advanced ColdFusion MX Developer Certified Flash MX Developer CFDJList - List Administrator http://www.how2cf.com/ -Original Message- From: Samuel R. Neff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 08 February 2004 19:11 To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II I think there's a difference between coming out and supporting a framework/standard/whatever and using it themselves.Simply using a framework for a portion of their own applications is not like they're saying everyone should use it.Quite to the contrary, none of the DRK code uses fusebox or Mach-II and that's much more of an insight into Macromedia's considered best practices (at least on the surface). Sam --- Blog: http://www.rewindlife.com Charts: http://www.blinex.com/products/charting --- -Original Message- From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2004 2:05 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II Of course, there is the point of view that Sun doesn't promote the use of any one framework or methodology. In fact, they don't even imply their preferred framework by making use of one. Further, even if any particular Java vendor promoted a specific framework it wouldn't have implications for the whole community since there is more than one vendor. At this point in time, the CFML community hasn't really accepted the multi-vendor paradigm we now find ourselves in. Thus, when Macromedia even implies a favorite that tells the community something very important. Personally, I think Macromedia would do better to stay away from getting involved with frameworks, methodologies, and standards. It is a no win situation since whichever effort they support, the other efforts will feel slighted. It shouldn't be that way... Macromedia should want to support everything and anything that the CFML community produces, but of course it is impossible to support everything. Therefore, they shouldn't support anything in particular. I
Re: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II
For years, Fusebox has been criticized by those who stand at a distance and throw stones at it while refusing to contribute or become involved in improvements to it. With Mach-ii, Sean is standing up as an individual and taking a role in it's development, not sitting back and complaining endlessly without contributing anything to it. I don't see the point here. Are you saying people can only complain about something if they are willing to fix it? When was the last time you complained about something in CFML? Did you fix it? I didn't think so! Now it is one thing to complain always and offer no contributions, but I don't see that here at all. I have heard before that Dave Watts and I are considered by many to be anti-Fusebox. Do we not contribute to the CFML community? Certainly I have complained about Fusebox, but have I done so without contributing to the CFML community? I think not! And for the record, I did submit at least a couple of bugs along with what I thought the fixes should be to Sean in regard to MachII. It's very apparent to me that Macromedia does not officially support Mach-ii. There will always be those who can't see that line, but then there are also those who don't understand alot of things. And it is for that very reason Macromedia should have known better. -Matt [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
RE: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II
I hear this secret sauce argument all the time and frankly think it is without merit. I have never walked into an organization and had trouble hitting the ground running because I had never seen the methodology, framework, or style in use at that organization. Further, as an architect for many organizations it was my job to design the methodology, framework, and style used in the organizations' applications and I never encountered a solid programmer who had trouble being productive from the beginning. I have to agree with Matt here - having one framework or another means nothing, as long as you understand the language - breaking the code into REALLY small bits of code that do things like read a query only makes it easier for the novice to find code - a good developer should be able to understand the code of another programmer as long as 1 things is in place: Documentation Documentation means NOTHING to the framework - any code can be well documented or badly documented - if you use FB or MachII, then your code could be non-documented and difficult read, just because it's in FB doesn't mean that anybody can pick it up easily Saying that, somebody who understands the language to a decent level can pick up code and run with it without any documentation - I've recevied code from others without any commenting and updated it just fine, and it wasn't in any kind of framework at all apart from the developers own... [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
Re: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II
Interesting example you choose to use. Do you not remember all the flak about Google vs. Verity when it Macromedia.com's rewrite used Google instead of Verity? I certainly do and it seems your example only furthers my point that implication is there. Further, I hope the reasoning for using Google was other then what you just wrote because if it was, then that means that Verity is not the correct choice for high-load sites. I doubt that this the message Macromedia is striving for. -Matt On Feb 8, 2004, at 2:49 PM, Simon Horwith wrote: There's a difference between Macromedia experimenting with CFML frameworks and their using their own product rather than a competitors to develop their own site... and you're right, some people might think Macromedia.com endorses MACH II or any other technology they use on their own site... but those people are wrong and quite honestly I don't think it's Macromedia's job to go out of their way to make that clear. If you don't see an official endorsement on a product vendors site then it's not officially endorsed. A good example of this is Macromedia's search engine. They don't use verity - they use Google. Does that mean they recommend and endorse the use of Google as opposed to a CFML implementation of Verity? No. It means that there's a time and a place to use one or the other, that their site (most likely due to the huge amount of load their search functionality is under at any given moment and the fct that Google has hardware as well as software solutions, etc.) uses Google for searches makes sense for them. This shouldn't be mistaken for a mark against the use of Verity. Verity is a great product, ColdFusion has a nice easy to use implementation of Verity, and it comes included with ColdFusion right out of the box. It's not right for everyone all the time, but it's sweet and is a solution worth considering and implementing until you have a reason to turn to another vendors solution(s). ~Simon Simon Horwith CTO, Etrilogy Ltd. Member of Team Macromedia Macromedia Certified Instructor Certified Advanced ColdFusion MX Developer Certified Flash MX Developer CFDJList - List Administrator http://www.how2cf.com/ -Original Message- From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 08 February 2004 19:34 To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II It doesn't matter what the want people to believe; it matters what people actually believe. You and I may make our decisions based on what is best for us and/or the organizations that we work with. However, many others will look at what Macromedia is doing and take that as an endorsement. And not to be mean, but it doesn't matter what you use on your sites; it matters what Macromedia uses. They know it too, why else did they redo the whole thing in CFML in the first place if they weren't aware of it? -Matt On Feb 8, 2004, at 2:12 PM, Simon Horwith wrote: I can say that as of the last time I spoke with folks at Macromedia, the use of any framework or software on their site is not meant to be taken as an official endorsement of it... which makes sense. I experiment with vendor products on sites I build all the time... it doesn't necessarily mean I endorse them, just that I'm checking out what they have to offer. ~Simon Simon Horwith CTO, Etrilogy Ltd. Member of Team Macromedia Macromedia Certified Instructor Certified Advanced ColdFusion MX Developer Certified Flash MX Developer CFDJList - List Administrator http://www.how2cf.com/ -Original Message- From: Samuel R. Neff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 08 February 2004 19:11 To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II I think there's a difference between coming out and supporting a framework/standard/whatever and using it themselves. Simply using a framework for a portion of their own applications is not like they're saying everyone should use it. Quite to the contrary, none of the DRK code uses fusebox or Mach-II and that's much more of an insight into Macromedia's considered best practices (at least on the surface). Sam --- Blog: http://www.rewindlife.com Charts: http://www.blinex.com/products/charting --- -Original Message- From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2004 2:05 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II Of course, there is the point of view that Sun doesn't promote the use of any one framework or methodology. In fact, they don't even imply their preferred framework by making use of one. Further
RE: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II
The fact that Macromedia took flak simply means that they didn't initially state their reasons for using Google or that people chose to ignore their reasons.I'm sure I could look at the code for MACH II and find dozens of lines of code (at least) that probably violate Macromedia's recommended coding practices... that doesn't mean there's anything controversial about them using it.Certain solutions are better suited for certain problems. If a certain section of Macromedia's site required very heavy COM use, I'd hope they'd use .NET to build it... .NET is better at that.I don't think it's fair for anyone to assume that Verity is not the correct choice for high-load sites until they have defined high-load.This is especially true when using Macromedia as an example - how many of us are working on sites that are under the same stress as theirs?Probably not many.I don't recall ever reading that Verity is the best solution for ALL of my search needs anywhere on Macromedia's site.It's powerful and easy to use, and it has pretty-much always suited my and my clients' needs.I agree with you that some people will make assumptions because of what Macromedia does in practice, and that's a sad fact of life that there's no way around. ~Simon Simon Horwith CTO, Etrilogy Ltd. Member of Team Macromedia Macromedia Certified Instructor Certified Advanced ColdFusion MX Developer Certified Flash MX Developer CFDJList - List Administrator http://www.how2cf.com/ -Original Message- From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 08 February 2004 20:05 To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II Interesting example you choose to use. Do you not remember all the flak about Google vs. Verity when it Macromedia.com's rewrite used Google instead of Verity? I certainly do and it seems your example only furthers my point that implication is there. Further, I hope the reasoning for using Google was other then what you just wrote because if it was, then that means that Verity is not the correct choice for high-load sites. I doubt that this the message Macromedia is striving for. -Matt On Feb 8, 2004, at 2:49 PM, Simon Horwith wrote: There's a difference between Macromedia experimenting with CFML frameworks and their using their own product rather than a competitors to develop their own site... and you're right, some people might think Macromedia.com endorses MACH II or any other technology they use on their own site... but those people are wrong and quite honestly I don't think it's Macromedia's job to go out of their way to make that clear.If you don't see an official endorsement on a product vendors site then it's not officially endorsed.A good example of this is Macromedia's search engine.They don't use verity - they use Google.Does that mean they recommend and endorse the use of Google as opposed to a CFML implementation of Verity?No.It means that there's a time and a place to use one or the other, that their site (most likely due to the huge amount of load their search functionality is under at any given moment and the fct that Google has hardware as well as software solutions, etc.) uses Google for searches makes sense for them.This shouldn't be mistaken for a mark against the use of Verity.Verity is a great product, ColdFusion has a nice easy to use implementation of Verity, and it comes included with ColdFusion right out of the box.It's not right for everyone all the time, but it's sweet and is a solution worth considering and implementing until you have a reason to turn to another vendors solution(s). ~Simon Simon Horwith CTO, Etrilogy Ltd. Member of Team Macromedia Macromedia Certified Instructor Certified Advanced ColdFusion MX Developer Certified Flash MX Developer CFDJList - List Administrator http://www.how2cf.com/ -Original Message- From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 08 February 2004 19:34 To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II It doesn't matter what the want people to believe; it matters what people actually believe. You and I may make our decisions based on what is best for us and/or the organizations that we work with. However, many others will look at what Macromedia is doing and take that as an endorsement. And not to be mean, but it doesn't matter what you use on your sites; it matters what Macromedia uses. They know it too, why else did they redo the whole thing in CFML in the first place if they weren't aware of it? -Matt On Feb 8, 2004, at 2:12 PM, Simon Horwith wrote: I can say that as of the last time I spoke with folks at Macromedia, the use of any framework or software on their site is not meant to be taken as an official endorsement of it... which makes sense.I experiment with vendor products on sites I build all the time... it doesn't necessarily mean I endorse them, just that I'm checking out what they have to offer. ~Simon Simon Horwith CTO, Etrilogy Ltd
RE: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II
When was the last time you complained about something in CFML? Did you fix it? I didn't think so! I'd say my track record of participation in product betas is very good. -Cameron - Cameron Childress Sumo Consulting Inc --- land:858.509.3098 cell:678.637.5072 aim:cameroncf email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
RE: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II
I find this a little confusing Why would somebody contribute to something they don't use or dislike? You're right, it was confusing.My point is really that if you think you have a better solution, then that's great.If you can change the existing solution so that it overcomes your complaints, great, do it!Either way, build the community up and make it better, help others by sharing... >From some of his blog postings it was apparent that Sean was a little apprehensive about Fusebox.When Mach-ii came along, instead of just saying yeah, I don't like that either, he has gotten involved and is contributing.I think that's great. It's very easy to complain about everything without being constructive about any of it.In this case, I think something *very* constructive is happening with Mach-ii. -Cameron - Cameron Childress Sumo Consulting Inc --- land:858.509.3098 cell:678.637.5072 aim:cameroncf email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Philip Arnold [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2004 11:58 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II For years, Fusebox has been criticized by those who stand at a distance and throw stones at it while refusing to contribute or become involved in improvements to it.With Mach-ii, Sean is standing up as an individual and taking a role in it's development, not sitting back and complaining endlessly without contributing anything to it. I find this a little confusing Why would somebody contribute to something they don't use or dislike? If people don't like the way the framework is laid out, or the way it's designed to be built, then why would they try to use it, which they'd have to do to add to it Using a comparison, what you'd suggest is that vegetarians make meat products rather than throw stones at meat eaters - you're suggesting that they become involved in the industry to improve it rather than complain about it... I tried an early version of FB and it just didn't work for me - by the time it evolved into something usable for my sites, I already had a framework of my own which was heavily in-place - so why would I drop everything I had spent years developing just to contribute to a system I didn't use? [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
RE: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II
But it sounds like you are saying that MACR shouldn't use a framework because of political reasons. Are you saying that MACR should _not_ make a technical decision or _should_ make a technical decision? If MACHII worked best for them, then didn't they make the right decision? -Ray What I find to be the most amazing is how people don't make technical decisions in the tech industry. If any industry should have less religion and politics this should be the one. However, that is not the case. People are all too happy to be dogmatic about their language, their methodology, their framework, etc. -Matt [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
Re: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II
I agree with you that some people will make assumptions because of what Macromedia does in practice, and that's a sad fact of life that there's no way around. Which is why Macromedia should have known better and avoided the situation to begin with. For example, it would take someone of Sean's ability very little time to produce a framework to meet their needs, which would allow them to avoid using MachII. It is a simple cost/benefit analysis, it is cheaper to create an internal framework than the possible loss of revenue associated with ill will from the community. -Matt [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
Re: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II
I'd say my track record of participation in product betas is very good. You fixed bugs found product betas? -Matt [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
Re: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II
You're right, it was confusing. My point is really that if you think you have a better solution, then that's great. If you can change the existing solution so that it overcomes your complaints, great, do it! Either way, build the community up and make it better, help others by sharing... Who are you directing this at? I have certainly presented alternate frameworks on at least three different occasions. It's very easy to complain about everything without being constructive about any of it. In this case, I think something *very* constructive is happening with Mach-ii. Again, who is doing that? It seems to me that the most vocal people in the CFML community tend also to be the ones contributing back to it. -Matt [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
RE: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II
I'd say my track record of participation in product betas is very good. You fixed bugs found product betas Though I know I should resist, I will take your bait.I'd hate to deprive you of the pleasure a good argument. Your implication was that I don't attempt to fix things when I find something wrong in products.Knowing of course that the ColdFusion codebase is closed to non-employees, the literal meaning the question When was the last time you complained about something in CFML? Did you fix it? is quite absurd, which I guess was your point(?). My point being that I *do* provide very constructive input via heavy beta participation.I wasn't going to go there, but I guess if you'd like we can discuss your level of participation in the recent ColdFusion betas.;) -Cameron - Cameron Childress Sumo Consulting Inc --- land:858.509.3098 cell:678.637.5072 aim:cameroncf email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2004 12:36 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II I'd say my track record of participation in product betas is very good. You fixed bugs found product betas? -Matt [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
Re: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II
But it sounds like you are saying that MACR shouldn't use a framework because of political reasons. Are you saying that MACR should _not_ make a technical decision or _should_ make a technical decision? If MACHII worked best for them, then didn't they make the right decision? Nice! Macromedia should being making a technical decision in regard to which framework they use. However, they should also recognize that their position requires them to be very careful about making a technical decision that could attract ill will from their customers because they will need to defend their decision publicly and technical reasons are the only acceptable ones in such circumstances. If in this case, MachII was the best solution then the community would certainly benefit from understanding why that was the case. If not, many will just assume that is the case, which benefits no one except for the people behind MachII. -Matt [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
RE: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II
Who are you directing this at? I have certainly presented alternate frameworks on at least three different occasions. ... snip ... Again, who is doing that? Just a general statement, but if you fear that shoe fits feel free to defend yourself. I was there at the CFUG meeting where you presented one of those alternate frameworks, and it seemed like a sound idea.If you find the time to publish any more details about it, I'd be interested in learning more about them.Hopefully no Macromedia employees will use them or help out with them though, that'd just be wrong wrong wrong...;) -Cameron - Cameron Childress Sumo Consulting Inc --- land:858.509.3098 cell:678.637.5072 aim:cameroncf email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2004 12:41 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II You're right, it was confusing.My point is really that if you think you have a better solution, then that's great.If you can change the existing solution so that it overcomes your complaints, great, do it!Either way, build the community up and make it better, help others by sharing... Who are you directing this at? I have certainly presented alternate frameworks on at least three different occasions. It's very easy to complain about everything without being constructive about any of it.In this case, I think something *very* constructive is happening with Mach-ii. Again, who is doing that? It seems to me that the most vocal people in the CFML community tend also to be the ones contributing back to it. -Matt [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
RE: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II
in stating that this is a sad fact of life I was implying that Macromedia cannot avoid the situation.Not if they want to experiment, use other vendors' products, or do anything else that they have to in order to produce the best site they can.I don't think there's that much ill will in the community, though I could be wrong.I'd hope that if anything, people are curious as to why it's being used and/or what it is.Again, I could be wrong... and again, if I were a big shot at Macromedia I wouldn't be very worried about it. ~Simon Simon Horwith CTO, Etrilogy Ltd. Member of Team Macromedia Macromedia Certified Instructor Certified Advanced ColdFusion MX Developer Certified Flash MX Developer CFDJList - List Administrator http://www.how2cf.com/ -Original Message- From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 08 February 2004 20:28 To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II I agree with you that some people will make assumptions because of what Macromedia does in practice, and that's a sad fact of life that there's no way around. Which is why Macromedia should have known better and avoided the situation to begin with. For example, it would take someone of Sean's ability very little time to produce a framework to meet their needs, which would allow them to avoid using MachII. It is a simple cost/benefit analysis, it is cheaper to create an internal framework than the possible loss of revenue associated with ill will from the community. -Matt [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
Re: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II
Your implication was that I don't attempt to fix things when I find something wrong in products. Knowing of course that the ColdFusion codebase is closed to non-employees, the literal meaning the question When was the last time you complained about something in CFML? Did you fix it? is quite absurd, which I guess was your point(?). Philip obviously did a much better job at making the point I was striving for. My point being that I *do* provide very constructive input via heavy beta participation. I wasn't going to go there, but I guess if you'd like we can discuss your level of participation in the recent ColdFusion betas. ;) I don't doubt you input is constructive. I believe bug reports are very constructive and I also believe specific complaints are constructive too. In regard to my beta participation, I did win TeraTech's bug hunt award for finding the most bugs in CFMX. However, I am no longer invited to participate in ColdFusion betas, so I guess Macromedia doesn't want my valuable input any longer. I am however a very active participant in the recent BlueDragon betas where I have submitted bugs and contributed code. -Matt [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
Re: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II
I was there at the CFUG meeting where you presented one of those alternate frameworks, and it seemed like a sound idea. If you find the time to publish any more details about it, I'd be interested in learning more about them. Hopefully no Macromedia employees will use them or help out with them though, that'd just be wrong wrong wrong... ;) It would indeed. Imagine the flak they would get if the used anything authored by me. ;) -Matt [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
RE: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II
This has nothing to do with sauces secret or not.Our aim at Webapper is to leave our clients with the best result possible when we design and build web applications.We want to make sure that they will be able to find developers if needed who can understand what we did easily, who can enhance what we did easily and efficiently.In addition we have several large clients who want to adhere to recognized and well distributed Standards/Frameworks not something designed by a particular single developer and not used outside of that developers domain and influence.That sort of framework would be of no use or interest to those sorts of clients.This also has nothing to do with religion or politics but has everything to do doing the best for our clients.A well designed/evolved Web Application framework should be adaptable and usable for all types of Web Applications, there should be no need to have different frameworks for different Web Application needs. I also dont understand what you meant here-If not, many will just assume that is the case, which benefits no one except for the people behind MachII . Perhaps I am nave here but I actually believe, Ben Edwards, Hal Helms and Sean Corfield have the interests of the developer community at heart in their work on Mach-ii.There are virtually no direct benefits to any of them in putting the hours into designing and evolving Mach-ii. Kind Regards - Mike Brunt Webapper Services LLC Web Site http://www.webapper.com Blog http://www.webapper.net Webapper Web Application Specialists -Original Message- From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2004 11:46 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II I hear this secret sauce argument all the time and frankly think it is without merit. I have never walked into an organization and had trouble hitting the ground running because I had never seen the methodology, framework, or style in use at that organization. Further, as an architect for many organizations it was my job to design the methodology, framework, and style used in the organizations' applications and I never encountered a solid programmer who had trouble being productive from the beginning. Now all that may be anecdotal evidence and it may be that I have no sense of how things really are, but I don't really think that is the case. IMHO, using the same methodology, framework, or style for every application is a disservice to you and the organization. Every application has different requirements, which should be taken into account before choosing a methodology, framework, or style. What I find to be the most amazing is how people don't make technical decisions in the tech industry. If any industry should have less religion and politics this should be the one. However, that is not the case. People are all too happy to be dogmatic about their language, their methodology, their framework, etc. -Matt On Feb 8, 2004, at 2:29 PM, Mike Brunt wrote: Good points Matt but I have a different point of view.Having architected many ColdFusion applications at many companies, having worked for Allaire and then Macromedia as a Consultant I see ColdFusion from a purely functional standpoint.I definitely see the need for a Framework that is widely dispersed and widely recognized. In my work with Allaire I was exposed to this is our version of Fusebox, it s better at best or we have a framework that John Foo a developer introduced but now hes gone and we dont understand it or whats a framework, we prefer pasta style code or rather thats what he have. There is a definite need for a Framework in most if not all Web Application development.The more ubiquitous it is the better, this will definitely help Web Application design and engineering overall IHMO. As far as Macromedia using a Framework and one that is gaining recognition, I see absolutely no harm in that at all.In addition, if the belief that Sean Corfields coding guidelines are actually Macromedias encourages more developers to use them, there is no harm in that either.Better Web Applications will result from all of this. Kind Regards - Mike Brunt Webapper Services LLC Web Site http://www.webapper.com Blog http://www.webapper.net Webapper Web Application Specialists -Original Message- From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2004 11:05 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II Of course, there is the point of view that Sun doesn't promote the use of any one framework or methodology. In fact, they don't even imply their preferred framework by making use of one. Further, even if any particular Java vendor promoted a specific framework it wouldn't have implications for the whole community since there is more than one vendor. At this point in time, the CFML community hasn't really accepted the multi-vendor paradigm we now find ourselves in. Thus, when Macromedia even implies
RE: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II
I don't think it's any secret that Hal makes a large part of his living by teaching the frameworks he releases.The statement that he has nothing to directly benefit from designing and evolving the framework is jusst not accurate at all.That's not to say that he does or doesn't have the best interests of developers in mind when he does so, but I thought I'd point that out. ~Simon Simon Horwith CTO, Etrilogy Ltd. Member of Team Macromedia Macromedia Certified Instructor Certified Advanced ColdFusion MX Developer Certified Flash MX Developer CFDJList - List Administrator http://www.how2cf.com/ -Original Message- From: Mike Brunt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 08 February 2004 21:21 To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II This has nothing to do with sauces secret or not.Our aim at Webapper is to leave our clients with the best result possible when we design and build web applications.We want to make sure that they will be able to find developers if needed who can understand what we did easily, who can enhance what we did easily and efficiently.In addition we have several large clients who want to adhere to recognized and well distributed Standards/Frameworks not something designed by a particular single developer and not used outside of that developers domain and influence.That sort of framework would be of no use or interest to those sorts of clients.This also has nothing to do with religion or politics but has everything to do doing the best for our clients.A well designed/evolved Web Application framework should be adaptable and usable for all types of Web Applications, there should be no need to have different frameworks for different Web Application needs. I also don't understand what you meant here-If not, many will just assume that is the case, which benefits no one except for the people behind MachII . Perhaps I am nave here but I actually believe, Ben Edwards, Hal Helms and Sean Corfield have the interests of the developer community at heart in their work on Mach-ii.There are virtually no direct benefits to any of them in putting the hours into designing and evolving Mach-ii. Kind Regards - Mike Brunt Webapper Services LLC Web Site http://www.webapper.com Blog http://www.webapper.net Webapper Web Application Specialists -Original Message- From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2004 11:46 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II I hear this secret sauce argument all the time and frankly think it is without merit. I have never walked into an organization and had trouble hitting the ground running because I had never seen the methodology, framework, or style in use at that organization. Further, as an architect for many organizations it was my job to design the methodology, framework, and style used in the organizations' applications and I never encountered a solid programmer who had trouble being productive from the beginning. Now all that may be anecdotal evidence and it may be that I have no sense of how things really are, but I don't really think that is the case. IMHO, using the same methodology, framework, or style for every application is a disservice to you and the organization. Every application has different requirements, which should be taken into account before choosing a methodology, framework, or style. What I find to be the most amazing is how people don't make technical decisions in the tech industry. If any industry should have less religion and politics this should be the one. However, that is not the case. People are all too happy to be dogmatic about their language, their methodology, their framework, etc. -Matt On Feb 8, 2004, at 2:29 PM, Mike Brunt wrote: Good points Matt but I have a different point of view.Having architected many ColdFusion applications at many companies, having worked for Allaire and then Macromedia as a Consultant I see ColdFusion from a purely functional standpoint.I definitely see the need for a Framework that is widely dispersed and widely recognized. In my work with Allaire I was exposed to this is our version of Fusebox, it 's better at best or we have a framework that John Foo a developer introduced but now he's gone and we don't understand it or what's a framework, we prefer pasta style code or rather that's what he have. There is a definite need for a Framework in most if not all Web Application development.The more ubiquitous it is the better, this will definitely help Web Application design and engineering overall IHMO. As far as Macromedia using a Framework and one that is gaining recognition, I see absolutely no harm in that at all.In addition, if the belief that Sean Corfield's coding guidelines are actually Macromedia's encourages more developers to use them, there is no harm in that either.Better Web Applications will result from all of this. Kind Regards - Mike Brunt Webapper Services LLC Web Site http
Re: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II
This has nothing to do with sauces secret or not. Our aim at Webapper is to leave our clients with the best result possible when we design and build web applications. We want to make sure that they will be able to find developers if needed who can understand what we did easily, who can enhance what we did easily and efficiently. It should be easy to find developers who can understand your work no matter what methodology/framework you made use of. In addition we have several large clients who want to adhere to recognized and well distributed Standards/Frameworks not something designed by a particular single developer and not used outside of that developers domain and influence. That sort of framework would be of no use or interest to those sorts of clients. Then those clients must be demanding solutions that aren't written in CFML since there is certainly no standard (de facto or otherwise) available and even the most widely distributed Framework is use has a low enough percentage of the CFML market that it wouldn't fit your definition anyway. Now I've pretty much only worked with very large clients and I just have never encountered the desire for this. This also has nothing to do with religion or politics but has everything to do doing the best for our clients. A well designed/evolved Web Application framework should be adaptable and usable for all types of Web Applications, there should be no need to have different frameworks for different Web Application needs. That is simply not correct. Trust me, it is rather annoying to constantly have to create a new framework when I start a new project. If I could use a pervious framework or even someone else's framework I would. But, time and time again I found that the best possible thing I can do is create a new framework specific for the application. I also dont understand what you meant here- If not, many will just assume that is the case, which benefits no one except for the people behind MachII . Perhaps I am nave here but I actually believe, Ben Edwards, Hal Helms and Sean Corfield have the interests of the developer community at heart in their work on Mach-ii. There are virtually no direct benefits to any of them in putting the hours into designing and evolving Mach-ii. Maybe I am wrong too, but it sure does seem like Hal Helms makes his livelihood off of Fusebox and MachII related activities. -Matt [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
Re: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II
CFRANT This entire thread is proof that many code-writers who have self-taught themselves actually believe that the only way to arrive at a solution is the one they arrived at after years of hacking away. It is also proof that the vast majority of intricate development efforts after sucking up a ton of money end up being worthless or at least trashed in a very short time after delivery. I wish each of you would try, even if for a little while, try to look past your own arrogance, and re-read the entire thread and get a new look at just how ridiculous and ludicrous it has been.Not a single one of you have contributed to the advancement of programming in general or ColdFusion specifically.At least not what can be read from your posts to this thread. From the outside, it is simple to understand why there has been such a demise in the respect for good solution provision, and a lack of structure in your code-writing.I award each of you the spaghetti code award. Get real, guys, there are always more than one route to the same destination, and none of you have advanced any logical reason to think your way is the only way to get from point A to point B. CFRANT == Stop spam on your domain, Anti-spam solutions http://www.clickdoug.com/mailfilter.cfm For hosting solutions http://www.clickdoug.com == Aspire to Inspire before you Retire or Expire! [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
RE: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II
I hear this secret sauce argument all the time and frankly think it is without merit. I have never walked into an organization and had trouble hitting the ground running because I had never seen the methodology, framework, or style in use at that organization. [stacy] There's a big difference between you and an average developer getting up to speed on grunt work in a web app though. ;) Further, as an architect for many organizations it was my job to design the methodology, framework, and style used in the organizations' applications and I never encountered a solid programmer who had trouble being productive from the beginning. [stacy] Again, most likely a result from a well crafted design on your part. That requires a level of expertise not available in many organizations. Now all that may be anecdotal evidence and it may be that I have no sense of how things really are, but I don't really think that is the case. IMHO, using the same methodology, framework, or style for every application is a disservice to you and the organization. Every application has different requirements, which should be taken into account before choosing a methodology, framework, or style. [stacy] I'd agree some applications require a specific/custom/extended framework but many can fare quite well in commonly available frameworks. What I find to be the most amazing is how people don't make technical decisions in the tech industry. If any industry should have less religion and politics this should be the one. However, that is not the case. People are all too happy to be dogmatic about their language, their methodology, their framework, etc. [stacy] That's the first time I've heard someone say that - I thought I was alone! I've seen two spin off companies take dives for this very way of thinking. It's like packs of wolves, each group guarding their own territory...and no matter what, people can always find a way to justify a particular course of action as long as it remains in their 'territory'. I think we all have this natural tendency but it's something you have to address consciously every so often...force yourself to look at things with a fresh pair of eyes. Cheers! Stace AVIS IMPORTANT: --- Les informations contenues dans le present document et ses pieces jointes sont strictement confidentielles et reservees a l'usage de la (des) personne(s) a qui il est adresse. Si vous n'etes pas le destinataire, soyez avise que toute divulgation, distribution, copie, ou autre utilisation de ces informations est strictement prohibee. Si vous avez recu ce document par erreur, veuillez s'il vous plait communiquer immediatement avec l'expediteur et detruire ce document sans en faire de copie sous quelque forme. WARNING: --- The information contained in this document and attachments is confidential and intended only for the person(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or any other use of the information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this document by mistake, please notify the sender immediately and destroy this document and attachments without making any copy of any kind. [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
RE: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II
I'd have to disagree with that assessment Matt. I think if they went their own way and developed a framework internally they'd have just as many developers *asking* about it. Wanting examples, articles and such...and asking if it's a suggested standard. I'm not saying there are no negative impacts from selecting one over another...I just don't think it outweighs the positives and I'd have a hard time imagining any loss of sales over the decision. Stace _ From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2004 3:28 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II I agree with you that some people will make assumptions because of what Macromedia does in practice, and that's a sad fact of life that there's no way around. Which is why Macromedia should have known better and avoided the situation to begin with. For example, it would take someone of Sean's ability very little time to produce a framework to meet their needs, which would allow them to avoid using MachII. It is a simple cost/benefit analysis, it is cheaper to create an internal framework than the possible loss of revenue associated with ill will from the community. -Matt _ [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
RE: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II
C'mon Matt, that's only cause you've had a long outstanding bone to pick with them;-) -Stace _ From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2004 4:06 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II I was there at the CFUG meeting where you presented one of those alternate frameworks, and it seemed like a sound idea.If you find the time to publish any more details about it, I'd be interested in learning more about them.Hopefully no Macromedia employees will use them or help out with them though, that'd just be wrong wrong wrong...;) It would indeed. Imagine the flak they would get if the used anything authored by me. ;) -Matt _ [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
RE: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II
Yikes, sorry folks my commenting is hard to read... _ From: Stacy Young Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2004 5:16 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II I hear this secret sauce argument all the time and frankly think it is without merit. I have never walked into an organization and had trouble hitting the ground running because I had never seen the methodology, framework, or style in use at that organization. [stacy] There's a big difference between you and an average developer getting up to speed on grunt work in a web app though. ;) Further, as an architect for many organizations it was my job to design the methodology, framework, and style used in the organizations' applications and I never encountered a solid programmer who had trouble being productive from the beginning. [stacy] Again, most likely a result from a well crafted design on your part. That requires a level of expertise not available in many organizations. Now all that may be anecdotal evidence and it may be that I have no sense of how things really are, but I don't really think that is the case. IMHO, using the same methodology, framework, or style for every application is a disservice to you and the organization. Every application has different requirements, which should be taken into account before choosing a methodology, framework, or style. [stacy] I'd agree some applications require a specific/custom/extended framework but many can fare quite well in commonly available frameworks. What I find to be the most amazing is how people don't make technical decisions in the tech industry. If any industry should have less religion and politics this should be the one. However, that is not the case. People are all too happy to be dogmatic about their language, their methodology, their framework, etc. [stacy] That's the first time I've heard someone say that - I thought I was alone! I've seen two spin off companies take dives for this very way of thinking. It's like packs of wolves, each group guarding their own territory...and no matter what, people can always find a way to justify a particular course of action as long as it remains in their 'territory'. I think we all have this natural tendency but it's something you have to address consciously every so often...force yourself to look at things with a fresh pair of eyes. Cheers! Stace AVIS IMPORTANT: --- Les informations contenues dans le present document et ses pieces jointes sont strictement confidentielles et reservees a l'usage de la (des) personne(s) a qui il est adresse. Si vous n'etes pas le destinataire, soyez avise que toute divulgation, distribution, copie, ou autre utilisation de ces informations est strictement prohibee. Si vous avez recu ce document par erreur, veuillez s'il vous plait communiquer immediatement avec l'expediteur et detruire ce document sans en faire de copie sous quelque forme. WARNING: --- The information contained in this document and attachments is confidential and intended only for the person(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or any other use of the information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this document by mistake, please notify the sender immediately and destroy this document and attachments without making any copy of any kind. _ [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
RE: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II
I'm not saying there are no negative impacts from selecting one over another...I just don't think it outweighs the positives and I'd have a hard time imagining any loss of sales over the decision. How would you lose a sale? Unless your clients dictate what framework you work with, they don't know what you code in Using one framework over another is a coding choice - if you find it easier to work with Fusebox or MachII, then use them, but if you run into issue with it as you're developing, then it's because you made that choice If each framework did EVERYTHING, then there'd only be one framework, as it would be ideal for everybody in all situations The problem with companies which demand a framework is that instead of hiring an excellent developer who has never used that framework, they'd rather hire somebody who knows the framework really well, but isn't as experienced with CF - I've seen job specs where they DEMAND full knowledge of FuseBox and wouldn't speak to anybody who hadn't used it [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
RE: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II
This thread has been interesting for a number of reasons.I read most of the posts offered on this list because there is quite often a nugget of knowledge I glean whether the thread addresses a specific issue I happen to be dealing with.I've learned a lot from those of you who have been most vocal on this issue. I wouldn't pretend to be qualified enough to know the intent of MM's decision to use one methodology or one technology over another.But it's a simple fact that knowing they have evaluated Mach-II and implemented it in parts of their site raises its value next time I need to make a similar decision. BG [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
RE: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II
The problem with companies which demand a framework is that instead of hiring an excellent developer who has never used that framework, they'd rather hire somebody who knows the framework really well, but isn't as experienced with CF - I've seen job specs where they DEMAND full knowledge of FuseBox and wouldn't speak to anybody who hadn't used it I've seen this too. It makes sense that if your application is written in CF, you hire someone who knows CF, not just PHP (for example).IF you application is written in CF/Fusebox, it's sensible to look for someone who knows Fusebox as well.I do find it disturbing however, that some companies will not consider a great CF developer just because they don't know Fusebox inside out. On the other hard, some people who don't use and/or like Fusebox may have caused certain companies to behave that way.I have seen great CF folks (who are also non-fusebox people) march into a project and (because they have a prejudice against FB) summarily declare that all the Fusebox stuff is crap, we're going to have to start over.This type of experience could definitely lead a company to refuse to hire non-Fusebox people in the future. I doubt this is always the case, but in some cases I can tell you for sure that it is. -Cameron - Cameron Childress Sumo Consulting Inc --- land:858.509.3098 cell:678.637.5072 aim:cameroncf email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
RE: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II
On the other hard, some people who don't use and/or like Fusebox may have caused certain companies to behave that way. I have seen great CF folks (who are also non-fusebox people) march into a project and (because they have a prejudice against FB) summarily declare that all the Fusebox stuff is crap, we're going to have to start over.This type of experience could definitely lead a company to refuse to hire non-Fusebox people in the future. In which case, in the interview you tell them that you use FuseBox, you don't exclude people just because they don't use FB every day - that's just stoopid! I don't use FB every day, but I could pick it up if I wanted to [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
RE: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II
[Matt] I think Sean Corfield's coding standards document is a perfect example of where a useful contribution has turned into something else entirely. There are many people who now consider the content of those documents to be official from Macromedia, which can't be further from the truth. Well, that's because these documents are hosted on Macromedia.com and seem to be part of the official livedocs (http://livedocs.macromedia.com/wtg/public/coding_standards/) so why should anyone think differently? [Simon] If a certain section of Macromedia's site required very heavy COM use, I'd hope they'd use .NET to build it... .NET is better at that. I'd hope they would invest in making their own language good enough to deal with the problem if they realize that they might not be the only ones facing that situation. Other than that - if you need a single reason why MM should not use a certain Framework on their site without publicly explaining why they do so then just take a look at this thread :-) Also the fact that it broke without the error being caught somewhere along the line suggests that either the framework sucks or the developers screwed up somewhere which normally nobody would really speculate about but knowing that Mach-II is working in the background this is now subject to speculations. Cheers, Philipp -- cielen.com Fressgass / Alte Oper Grosse Bockenheimer Str. 54 60313 Frankfurt am Main Germany tel +49-69-29724620 fax +49-69-29724637 [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
Re: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II
[stacy] There's a big difference between you and an average developer getting up to speed on grunt work in a web app though. ;) I don't believe the average developer is below being able to quickly get up to speed on an application. [stacy] Again, most likely a result from a well crafted design on your part. That requires a level of expertise not available in many organizations. That may be, but I believe that is where frameworks come into play. The idea is to use the best framework for the application in question. If you aren't capable of determining that then using an existing framework from someone else is likely the way to go. However, that doesn't invalidate the notion that homegrown frameworks are any harder to understand or be productive in than frameworks with a community behind them. [stacy] I'd agree some applications require a specific/custom/extended framework but many can fare quite well in commonly available frameworks. Require and benefit mean two different things. It may be that many application don't require custom frameworks, but it also may be that they can benefit from them. -Matt [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
Re: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II
C'mon Matt, that's only cause you've had a long outstanding bone to pick with them ;-) Actually, I meant a completely differently line of reasoning. Just to be clear though, I don't really have a bone to pick with them. -Matt [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
Re: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II
Well, that's because these documents are hosted on Macromedia.com and seem to be part of the official livedocs (http://livedocs.macromedia.com/wtg/public/coding_standards/) so why should anyone think differently? IMHO, hosting the documents on livedocs only makes the situation worse. I mentioned this to Sean, but my opinion didn't seem to sway him in any way. It is quite the situation where non-official standards are written by the vendor and hosted by the vendor, but not endorsed by the vendor. -Matt [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
Re: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II
On Feb 8, 2004, at 2:05 PM, Matt Liotta wrote: Boy-oh-boy. Where to start? Macromedia should want to support everything and anything that the CFML community produces, but of course it is impossible to support everything. Therefore, they shouldn't support anything in particular. We have chosen instead to support the community and contribute where we can.If that sets us apart from Sun, so be it. I think Sean Corfield's coding standards document is a perfect example of where a useful contribution has turned into something else entirely. Has this document had some sort of negative impact that I'm not aware of? Christian [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
Re: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II
On Feb 8, 2004, at 2:18 PM, Matt Liotta wrote: The fact they are using a particular framework implies that they choose it as opposed to other frameworks because it was the best. The DRK is another example of where they screwed up as it implies the same thing; that what they ship in the DRK is best of breed. I think this is another example of where *you* believe Macromedia screwed up.You appear to be in the minority, however.As I've written in the past when you have said that Macromedia should be ashamed of itself for the DRK, we are actually proud to both accept and solicit contributes from the Macromedia development community. Christian [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
Re: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II
On Feb 8, 2004, at 3:04 PM, Matt Liotta wrote: Do you not remember all the flak about Google vs. Verity when it Macromedia.com's rewrite used Google instead of Verity? I remember that the majority of that flack came from you, just as you seem to be the only one on this thread who has a problem with Sean's team using Mach II.I think you have made your opinion abundantly clear.I'm sure Sean and his team will give it due consideration. Christian [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
Re: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II
Well, that's because these documents are hosted on Macromedia.com and seem to be part of the official livedocs (http://livedocs.macromedia.com/wtg/public/coding_standards/) so why should anyone think differently? Note that the document is made up of observations made by people in the community over the years and includes some things that are no longer true. The same site also happens to have the Mach-II docs which gives weight to peoples argument of MM supporting Mach-II over framework X or Y. I don't see OnTap, Fusebox, Plum or anything else there. Not that I really care one way or another, but if someones going to complain, that's just more ammo. [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
Re: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II
On Feb 8, 2004, at 3:48 PM, Matt Liotta wrote: If in this case, MachII was the best solution then the community would certainly benefit from understanding why that was the case. If not, many will just assume that is the case, which benefits no one except for the people behind MachII. Perhaps Sean needs to make it more clear that his team's decision should not be considered an endorsement from the company he works for. Sounds fair enough.I'm sure he will be happy to clarify the situation when he gets back. Christian [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
