Re: Translation please: CFC::CF as ???:ASP
Dave Watts wrote: So, my question is, what do ASP people refer to components as? Within a well-designed classic ASP application, business logic is separated from ASP scripting by putting it within COM (or COM+ or MTS) objects. Classic ASP development best practices recommend the use of COM for any significant application logic. I'm trying to talk to the ASP guys about using CFC-like components so that the client's CF guys can interface with them, but the ideas just aren't getting across. If the ASP application is using COM objects, you may be able to successfully use them from CF, depending on how they're written. But I wouldn't recommend using CF to talk to COM objects generally, if you can avoid it. Since Asp 3.0 there is the possibility to use VBScript's functionality to create classes. This is only with the windows script runtime 5.6 and higher if I'm not mistaking. This supplies only classes, no inheritance or overloading, no access control, but at least some form of encapsulating functionality. This ofcourse cannot be shared with Coldfusion unless you implement all functionality on both sides or use WDDX or XML or any other language to pass parameters around. Jesse [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
Re: Translation please: CFC::CF as ???:ASP
I am not an ASP person, but as far as I know ASP is an interpreted language and in its capabilities similar to CF5 (through CF has way more futures). There is no equivalent of components for ASP AFAIK. I think CFMX is more like .net. I would suggest that you use web services for communication between CF and ASP parts. TK - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: CF-Talk Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2003 1:15 PM Subject: Translation please: CFC::CF as ???:ASP Hi guys!I have a client who is dealing with a software development company that supplies a VB-based client application, which also has a web component.They do their web work in ASP.My client has another vendor that prefers to use CF for their work, and needs to talk to the ASP oriented vendor.I'm trying to talk to the ASP guys about using CFC-like components so that the client's CF guys can interface with them, but the ideas just aren't getting across. So, my question is, what do ASP people refer to components as? Also, do the ASP folks have the same ability that CFMX has with respect to generating compiled code, or do the ASP scripts have to be interpreted every time they run? thanks for any help and ideas [still looking for a permanent CF gig here in Pittsburgh!] -reed [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
RE: Translation please: CFC::CF as ???:ASP
ASP is not object oriented so you won't get anything like components. ASP is procedural. If you want something OO based then maybe the ASP guys can change over to ASP.NET which is OO. It sounds like web services would be the best way to go for what you want to do. Ben -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2003 1:16 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: Translation please: CFC::CF as ???:ASP Hi guys!I have a client who is dealing with a software development company that supplies a VB-based client application, which also has a web component.They do their web work in ASP.My client has another vendor that prefers to use CF for their work, and needs to talk to the ASP oriented vendor.I'm trying to talk to the ASP guys about using CFC-like components so that the client's CF guys can interface with them, but the ideas just aren't getting across. So, my question is, what do ASP people refer to components as? Also, do the ASP folks have the same ability that CFMX has with respect to generating compiled code, or do the ASP scripts have to be interpreted every time they run? thanks for any help and ideas [still looking for a permanent CF gig here in Pittsburgh!] -reed _ [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
RE: Translation please: CFC::CF as ???:ASP
ASP's equivalent of a CFC would be a VB based COM object. If you need two way communications and they're stuck with traditional ASP, then WDDX may be the best approach.There's a WDDX COM object they can use to serialize/deserialize ASP variables the same way we do with CF. If they were to use ASP.NET then web services would be advisable, but still there are interoperability issues with web services using all but the most basic variable types. Other options would be to come up with a custom XML schema for your communications that you both can agree on and use that.For CF, XML development is very quick and it's not too bad in ASP either. ASP is interpreted each time (I think it's converted to p-code and cached in memory).ASP.NET is compiled.The interpreted vs. compiled argument isn't always valid.Blue Dragon's implementation of CFML is faster than MM's CF in many cases but BD uses an interpreted (p-code) mechanism. Good luck, Sam -- Blog:http://www.rewindlife.com Chart: http://www.blinex.com/products/charting -- -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2003 1:16 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: Translation please: CFC::CF as ???:ASP Hi guys!I have a client who is dealing with a software development company that supplies a VB-based client application, which also has a web component. They do their web work in ASP.My client has another vendor that prefers to use CF for their work, and needs to talk to the ASP oriented vendor.I'm trying to talk to the ASP guys about using CFC-like components so that the client's CF guys can interface with them, but the ideas just aren't getting across. So, my question is, what do ASP people refer to components as? Also, do the ASP folks have the same ability that CFMX has with respect to generating compiled code, or do the ASP scripts have to be interpreted every time they run? thanks for any help and ideas [still looking for a permanent CF gig here in Pittsburgh!] -reed [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
RE: Translation please: CFC::CF as ???:ASP
So, my question is, what do ASP people refer to components as? Within a well-designed classic ASP application, business logic is separated from ASP scripting by putting it within COM (or COM+ or MTS) objects. Classic ASP development best practices recommend the use of COM for any significant application logic. I'm trying to talk to the ASP guys about using CFC-like components so that the client's CF guys can interface with them, but the ideas just aren't getting across. If the ASP application is using COM objects, you may be able to successfully use them from CF, depending on how they're written. But I wouldn't recommend using CF to talk to COM objects generally, if you can avoid it. Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ voice: (202) 797-5496 fax: (202) 797-5444 [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
Re: Translation please: CFC::CF as ???:ASP
COM OBJECTS? - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: CF-Talk Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2003 12:15 PM Subject: Translation please: CFC::CF as ???:ASP Hi guys!I have a client who is dealing with a software development company that supplies a VB-based client application, which also has a web component.They do their web work in ASP.My client has another vendor that prefers to use CF for their work, and needs to talk to the ASP oriented vendor.I'm trying to talk to the ASP guys about using CFC-like components so that the client's CF guys can interface with them, but the ideas just aren't getting across. So, my question is, what do ASP people refer to components as? Also, do the ASP folks have the same ability that CFMX has with respect to generating compiled code, or do the ASP scripts have to be interpreted every time they run? thanks for any help and ideas [still looking for a permanent CF gig here in Pittsburgh!] -reed [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
