Re: The New Macromedia Website(ODBC)
No, I got the point. You like to complain. - Original Message - From: "Joe Eugene" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2003 12:14 PM Subject: RE: The New Macromedia Website(ODBC) > LOL.. > > Yes, most developers just want to get something working and go home... > and then there are others who... are passionate about what they do... > Which one do you belog to :) > > > Sometimes I wish Sun never made those damned type II JDBC drivers > > I think you are missing the point here.. > > Joe Eugene > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Kwang Suh [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2003 3:20 AM > > To: CF-Talk > > Subject: Re: The New Macromedia Website(ODBC) > > > > > > lol. I see you've gotten so worked up, you're just babbling now. > > > > Ah well. You could always try using PHP. Or maybe ASP. Heck, I > > hear ODBC > > is still quite usable if you write code in C. > > > > Sometimes I wish Sun never made those damned type II JDBC drivers. Look > > what they did to poor Joe. > > > > Sorry Joe, don't mean to pick on ya. But it's pretty funny :) > > > > > > >There is NO point made here...unless u want you brief. > > > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "Joe Eugene" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2003 12:59 AM > > Subject: RE: The New Macromedia Website(ODBC) > > > > > > > > Every complex software product I've ever seen has numerous bugs. > > > > > > You might want to take a look at some of the *.jar files.. and see > > > how complex cfmx is... > > > > > > > No, I don't have any theories, just observations. If there > > are two ways > > to > > > > do something, and one works better than the other, I'll recommend the > > one > > > > that works. > > > > > > How do you OR i know...what works... unless you spent a few > > un-productive > > > hours > > > testing for what works? If i spend alot of time reseaching > > work-arounds to > > > a vendors software... > > > What value is that vendors software to me?.. where is ROI? > > > > > > Joe > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > > From: Dave Watts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2003 12:21 AM > > > > To: CF-Talk > > > > Subject: RE: The New Macromedia Website(ODBC) > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am NOT saying "ANY".. software is not perfect!. We are > > > > > not talking about one specific issue... CFMX has had numerous > > > > > issues... (Check Updater Docs... if you want to start counting > > > > > them) > > > > > > > > Every complex software product I've ever seen has numerous > > bugs. I'm not > > > > sure why you'd expect CFMX to be any different. > > > > > > > > > > My solution is to find the best way to solve a problem. > > > > > > If JDBC-ODBC doesn't work well in CFMX, but "pure" JDBC > > > > > > does, my solution may well be to recommend "pure" JDBC. > > > > > > > > > > Yes.. JDBC is a Solution/Alternative.. Not a fix to the > > > > > software(cfmx) BUG. > > > > > > > > > > Example...CFMX had COM Issues...am not sure where it > > > > > stands now... Any COM functionality can be replicated > > > > > very well through a Java Bean.. So in your theory... > > > > > Instead of MM fixing COM issues... you probably will > > > > > ask all your developers to re-write every COM in a > > > > > Java Bean? > > > > > > > > > > You have really have interesting theories. > > > > > > > > No, I don't have any theories, just observations. If there > > are two ways > > to > > > > do something, and one works better than the other, I'll recommend the > > one > > > > that works. If I need COM interoperability, I might not > > recommend a CFMX > > > > solution. For that matter, I might not recommend CF 5 for that, > > > > either. But > > > > I'm not going to wait for perfection from any vendor. > > > > > > > > Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software > > > > http://www.figleaf.com/ > > > > voice: (202) 797-5496 > > > > fax: (202) 797-5444 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
RE: The New Macromedia Website(ODBC)
Dave, Sorry.. the subject should probably be closed.. i agree. I am not just talking about ODBC issues, i had the alernative solution(JDBC type IV) long before any of this thread started. I was referring to how problems and issues should be handled/addressed. Thats all. Ok.. No more posts. Joe Eugene > -Original Message- > From: Dave Carabetta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2003 2:36 PM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: Re: The New Macromedia Website(ODBC) > > > > Yes, most developers just want to get something working and go home... > > and then there are others who... are passionate about what they do... > > Which one do you belog to :) > > And yet others are passionate, but read the documentation for a > product and > find out that a particular method to solving a problem is not the > recommended way, and to use the new, more efficient way. In reading the > documentation, this new, more efficient way will give me better > performance > and further provide a better product to my client. I, and I would wager a > good number of developers, belong to this group, even though there's no > official membership package. > > > I think you are missing the point here.. > > Joe, I thought you said a few posts back that this subject is closed for > you. And yet you continue to respond to it. Can we please just > let this go? > I'm not disputing that there may be a bug with the ODBC bridge in > MX -- I've > always used the native drivers. But you obviously have your opinion as to > how to resolve the issue, and other developers have theirs. If > you continue > to have problems with Macromedia's approach, please either get in > touch with > them directly or move on to another company's technology. > > Sorry, but after 50 posts, this is really old. > > Thanks in advance, > Dave. > ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
RE: The New Macromedia Website(ODBC)
> You complained about ODBC not working for you, a bunch of people > recommended you use the pure JDBC drivers instead (based on > Macromedia's own > recommendations about pure JDBC being preferable to JDBC-ODBC bridges, and > based on general knowledge and common sense), and you said that > worked. How > hard was that? I had JDBC Drivers working about 3-4 months ago.. Even before i was testing DB2 Universal drivers...(check old threads). Didnt need any recomendation from anybody here.. Again.. i didnt complain!. My first question to the list on the thread was How many people have ODBC working? This is to get an idea of other developers experiences. Obviously nobody had any good experiences... Other than one of your friends...thats amazing. ODBC is just one problem.. whether it gets fixed or NOT.. i dont care. > Well, apparently it's not as difficult as you make it out to be. I have spend hours testing CFC's performance and some other new functionality... writing test modules/cases for every new thing i use CFMX(cause no one knows what works and doesnt). You mentioned putting WARNING NOTES on Product labels earlier, Yes, Most software's have a section for "KNOWN ISSUES AND BUGS". Go download the J2EE bundle, you can find some there under the heading Release Notes\Known Bugs. This saves developers a lot of time and effort. Obviously...it only saves time for the curious developer.. perhaps in your case, if it works and doenst throw an error..everything is perfect. Joe Eugene > -Original Message- > From: Dave Watts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2003 11:30 AM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: RE: The New Macromedia Website(ODBC) > > > > > No, I don't have any theories, just observations. If there > > > are two ways to do something, and one works better than the > > > other, I'll recommend the one that works. > > > > How do you OR i know...what works... unless you spent a few > > un-productive hours testing for what works? If i spend alot > > of time reseaching work-arounds to a vendors software... > > What value is that vendors software to me?.. where is ROI? > > Well, apparently it's not as difficult as you make it out to be. Take your > own case. You complained about ODBC not working for you, a bunch of people > recommended you use the pure JDBC drivers instead (based on > Macromedia's own > recommendations about pure JDBC being preferable to JDBC-ODBC bridges, and > based on general knowledge and common sense), and you said that > worked. How > hard was that? > > Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software > http://www.figleaf.com/ > voice: (202) 797-5496 > fax: (202) 797-5444 > > ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
Re: The New Macromedia Website(ODBC)
> Yes, most developers just want to get something working and go home... > and then there are others who... are passionate about what they do... > Which one do you belog to :) And yet others are passionate, but read the documentation for a product and find out that a particular method to solving a problem is not the recommended way, and to use the new, more efficient way. In reading the documentation, this new, more efficient way will give me better performance and further provide a better product to my client. I, and I would wager a good number of developers, belong to this group, even though there's no official membership package. > I think you are missing the point here.. Joe, I thought you said a few posts back that this subject is closed for you. And yet you continue to respond to it. Can we please just let this go? I'm not disputing that there may be a bug with the ODBC bridge in MX -- I've always used the native drivers. But you obviously have your opinion as to how to resolve the issue, and other developers have theirs. If you continue to have problems with Macromedia's approach, please either get in touch with them directly or move on to another company's technology. Sorry, but after 50 posts, this is really old. Thanks in advance, Dave. ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in ColdFusion and related topics. http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
RE: The New Macromedia Website(ODBC)
LOL.. Yes, most developers just want to get something working and go home... and then there are others who... are passionate about what they do... Which one do you belog to :) > Sometimes I wish Sun never made those damned type II JDBC drivers I think you are missing the point here.. Joe Eugene > -Original Message- > From: Kwang Suh [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2003 3:20 AM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: Re: The New Macromedia Website(ODBC) > > > lol. I see you've gotten so worked up, you're just babbling now. > > Ah well. You could always try using PHP. Or maybe ASP. Heck, I > hear ODBC > is still quite usable if you write code in C. > > Sometimes I wish Sun never made those damned type II JDBC drivers. Look > what they did to poor Joe. > > Sorry Joe, don't mean to pick on ya. But it's pretty funny :) > > > >There is NO point made here...unless u want you brief. > > > - Original Message - > From: "Joe Eugene" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2003 12:59 AM > Subject: RE: The New Macromedia Website(ODBC) > > > > > Every complex software product I've ever seen has numerous bugs. > > > > You might want to take a look at some of the *.jar files.. and see > > how complex cfmx is... > > > > > No, I don't have any theories, just observations. If there > are two ways > to > > > do something, and one works better than the other, I'll recommend the > one > > > that works. > > > > How do you OR i know...what works... unless you spent a few > un-productive > > hours > > testing for what works? If i spend alot of time reseaching > work-arounds to > > a vendors software... > > What value is that vendors software to me?.. where is ROI? > > > > Joe > > > > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: Dave Watts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2003 12:21 AM > > > To: CF-Talk > > > Subject: RE: The New Macromedia Website(ODBC) > > > > > > > > > > I am NOT saying "ANY".. software is not perfect!. We are > > > > not talking about one specific issue... CFMX has had numerous > > > > issues... (Check Updater Docs... if you want to start counting > > > > them) > > > > > > Every complex software product I've ever seen has numerous > bugs. I'm not > > > sure why you'd expect CFMX to be any different. > > > > > > > > My solution is to find the best way to solve a problem. > > > > > If JDBC-ODBC doesn't work well in CFMX, but "pure" JDBC > > > > > does, my solution may well be to recommend "pure" JDBC. > > > > > > > > Yes.. JDBC is a Solution/Alternative.. Not a fix to the > > > > software(cfmx) BUG. > > > > > > > > Example...CFMX had COM Issues...am not sure where it > > > > stands now... Any COM functionality can be replicated > > > > very well through a Java Bean.. So in your theory... > > > > Instead of MM fixing COM issues... you probably will > > > > ask all your developers to re-write every COM in a > > > > Java Bean? > > > > > > > > You have really have interesting theories. > > > > > > No, I don't have any theories, just observations. If there > are two ways > to > > > do something, and one works better than the other, I'll recommend the > one > > > that works. If I need COM interoperability, I might not > recommend a CFMX > > > solution. For that matter, I might not recommend CF 5 for that, > > > either. But > > > I'm not going to wait for perfection from any vendor. > > > > > > Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software > > > http://www.figleaf.com/ > > > voice: (202) 797-5496 > > > fax: (202) 797-5444 > > > > > > > > > ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in ColdFusion and related topics. http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
RE: The New Macromedia Website(ODBC)
> > No, I don't have any theories, just observations. If there > > are two ways to do something, and one works better than the > > other, I'll recommend the one that works. > > How do you OR i know...what works... unless you spent a few > un-productive hours testing for what works? If i spend alot > of time reseaching work-arounds to a vendors software... > What value is that vendors software to me?.. where is ROI? Well, apparently it's not as difficult as you make it out to be. Take your own case. You complained about ODBC not working for you, a bunch of people recommended you use the pure JDBC drivers instead (based on Macromedia's own recommendations about pure JDBC being preferable to JDBC-ODBC bridges, and based on general knowledge and common sense), and you said that worked. How hard was that? Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ voice: (202) 797-5496 fax: (202) 797-5444 ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
Re: The New Macromedia Website(ODBC)
lol. I see you've gotten so worked up, you're just babbling now. Ah well. You could always try using PHP. Or maybe ASP. Heck, I hear ODBC is still quite usable if you write code in C. Sometimes I wish Sun never made those damned type II JDBC drivers. Look what they did to poor Joe. Sorry Joe, don't mean to pick on ya. But it's pretty funny :) >There is NO point made here...unless u want you brief. - Original Message - From: "Joe Eugene" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2003 12:59 AM Subject: RE: The New Macromedia Website(ODBC) > > Every complex software product I've ever seen has numerous bugs. > > You might want to take a look at some of the *.jar files.. and see > how complex cfmx is... > > > No, I don't have any theories, just observations. If there are two ways to > > do something, and one works better than the other, I'll recommend the one > > that works. > > How do you OR i know...what works... unless you spent a few un-productive > hours > testing for what works? If i spend alot of time reseaching work-arounds to > a vendors software... > What value is that vendors software to me?.. where is ROI? > > Joe > > > > > > -----Original Message- > > From: Dave Watts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2003 12:21 AM > > To: CF-Talk > > Subject: RE: The New Macromedia Website(ODBC) > > > > > > > I am NOT saying "ANY".. software is not perfect!. We are > > > not talking about one specific issue... CFMX has had numerous > > > issues... (Check Updater Docs... if you want to start counting > > > them) > > > > Every complex software product I've ever seen has numerous bugs. I'm not > > sure why you'd expect CFMX to be any different. > > > > > > My solution is to find the best way to solve a problem. > > > > If JDBC-ODBC doesn't work well in CFMX, but "pure" JDBC > > > > does, my solution may well be to recommend "pure" JDBC. > > > > > > Yes.. JDBC is a Solution/Alternative.. Not a fix to the > > > software(cfmx) BUG. > > > > > > Example...CFMX had COM Issues...am not sure where it > > > stands now... Any COM functionality can be replicated > > > very well through a Java Bean.. So in your theory... > > > Instead of MM fixing COM issues... you probably will > > > ask all your developers to re-write every COM in a > > > Java Bean? > > > > > > You have really have interesting theories. > > > > No, I don't have any theories, just observations. If there are two ways to > > do something, and one works better than the other, I'll recommend the one > > that works. If I need COM interoperability, I might not recommend a CFMX > > solution. For that matter, I might not recommend CF 5 for that, > > either. But > > I'm not going to wait for perfection from any vendor. > > > > Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software > > http://www.figleaf.com/ > > voice: (202) 797-5496 > > fax: (202) 797-5444 > > > > > ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in ColdFusion and related topics. http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
RE: The New Macromedia Website(ODBC)
> Every complex software product I've ever seen has numerous bugs. You might want to take a look at some of the *.jar files.. and see how complex cfmx is... > No, I don't have any theories, just observations. If there are two ways to > do something, and one works better than the other, I'll recommend the one > that works. How do you OR i know...what works... unless you spent a few un-productive hours testing for what works? If i spend alot of time reseaching work-arounds to a vendors software... What value is that vendors software to me?.. where is ROI? Joe > -Original Message- > From: Dave Watts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2003 12:21 AM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: RE: The New Macromedia Website(ODBC) > > > > I am NOT saying "ANY".. software is not perfect!. We are > > not talking about one specific issue... CFMX has had numerous > > issues... (Check Updater Docs... if you want to start counting > > them) > > Every complex software product I've ever seen has numerous bugs. I'm not > sure why you'd expect CFMX to be any different. > > > > My solution is to find the best way to solve a problem. > > > If JDBC-ODBC doesn't work well in CFMX, but "pure" JDBC > > > does, my solution may well be to recommend "pure" JDBC. > > > > Yes.. JDBC is a Solution/Alternative.. Not a fix to the > > software(cfmx) BUG. > > > > Example...CFMX had COM Issues...am not sure where it > > stands now... Any COM functionality can be replicated > > very well through a Java Bean.. So in your theory... > > Instead of MM fixing COM issues... you probably will > > ask all your developers to re-write every COM in a > > Java Bean? > > > > You have really have interesting theories. > > No, I don't have any theories, just observations. If there are two ways to > do something, and one works better than the other, I'll recommend the one > that works. If I need COM interoperability, I might not recommend a CFMX > solution. For that matter, I might not recommend CF 5 for that, > either. But > I'm not going to wait for perfection from any vendor. > > Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software > http://www.figleaf.com/ > voice: (202) 797-5496 > fax: (202) 797-5444 > > ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
RE: The New Macromedia Website(ODBC)
> but you completely missed the point of his answer. There is NO point made here...unless u want you brief. Joe Eugene > -Original Message- > From: Kwang Suh [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 11:50 PM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: Re: The New Macromedia Website(ODBC) > > > Mr. Watts can defend himself, but you completely missed the point of his > answer. > > - Original Message - > From: "Joe Eugene" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 8:52 PM > Subject: RE: The New Macromedia Website(ODBC) > > > > > So, you're saying that if there's ANY bug at all in CFMX, it > > > shouldn't have > > > been released > > > > I am NOT saying "ANY".. software is not perfect!. We are not talking > > about one specific issue... CFMX has had numerous issues... > > (Check Updater Docs... if you want to start counting them) > > > > > My solution is to find the best way to solve a problem. If > > > JDBC-ODBC doesn't > > > work well in CFMX, but "pure" JDBC does, my solution may well be to > > > recommend "pure" JDBC. > > > > Yes.. JDBC is a Solution/Alternative.. Not a fix to the software(cfmx) > BUG. > > > > Example...CFMX had COM Issues...am not sure where it stands now... > > Any COM functionality can be replicated very well through a Java Bean.. > > So in your theory...Instead of MM fixing COM issues... you probably > > will ask all your developers to re-write every COM in a Java Bean? > > > > You have really have interesting theories. > > > > Joe Eugene > > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: Dave Watts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 6:11 PM > > > To: CF-Talk > > > Subject: RE: The New Macromedia Website(ODBC) > > > > > > > > > > > It's another thing to say that the product shouldn't have > > > > > been released because of it. > > > > > > > > It might be your nature to release "BUG"/GY applications... > > > > I Dont operate that way. > > > > > > So, you're saying that if there's ANY bug at all in CFMX, it > > > shouldn't have > > > been released? I'd still be waiting for my bug-free copy of CF 2 then! > And > > > how about my Windows NT 3.51 fixes - I'm still waiting! It's > simply not > > > practical to expect any software package of any complexity to have no > bugs > > > at all. > > > > > > > > Most bugs aren't trivial to the people who run into them > > > > > > > > Apparently its Trivial to most developers here...If something > > > > doesnt work.. My solution is to get it fixed... Yours might > > > > be to improve Product Manuals and perhaps buy the User Big > > > > Eye Glasses... not a bad Strategy!. > > > > > > My solution is to find the best way to solve a problem. If > > > JDBC-ODBC doesn't > > > work well in CFMX, but "pure" JDBC does, my solution may well be to > > > recommend "pure" JDBC. If there's some reason that's not acceptable, > then > > > that's a different matter. But I try to keep my expectations > realistic. > > > > > > Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software > > > http://www.figleaf.com/ > > > voice: (202) 797-5496 > > > fax: (202) 797-5444 > > > > > > > > > ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
RE: The New Macromedia Website(ODBC)
> I am NOT saying "ANY".. software is not perfect!. We are > not talking about one specific issue... CFMX has had numerous > issues... (Check Updater Docs... if you want to start counting > them) Every complex software product I've ever seen has numerous bugs. I'm not sure why you'd expect CFMX to be any different. > > My solution is to find the best way to solve a problem. > > If JDBC-ODBC doesn't work well in CFMX, but "pure" JDBC > > does, my solution may well be to recommend "pure" JDBC. > > Yes.. JDBC is a Solution/Alternative.. Not a fix to the > software(cfmx) BUG. > > Example...CFMX had COM Issues...am not sure where it > stands now... Any COM functionality can be replicated > very well through a Java Bean.. So in your theory... > Instead of MM fixing COM issues... you probably will > ask all your developers to re-write every COM in a > Java Bean? > > You have really have interesting theories. No, I don't have any theories, just observations. If there are two ways to do something, and one works better than the other, I'll recommend the one that works. If I need COM interoperability, I might not recommend a CFMX solution. For that matter, I might not recommend CF 5 for that, either. But I'm not going to wait for perfection from any vendor. Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ voice: (202) 797-5496 fax: (202) 797-5444 ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for dependable ColdFusion Hosting. Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
Re: The New Macromedia Website(ODBC)
Mr. Watts can defend himself, but you completely missed the point of his answer. - Original Message - From: "Joe Eugene" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 8:52 PM Subject: RE: The New Macromedia Website(ODBC) > > So, you're saying that if there's ANY bug at all in CFMX, it > > shouldn't have > > been released > > I am NOT saying "ANY".. software is not perfect!. We are not talking > about one specific issue... CFMX has had numerous issues... > (Check Updater Docs... if you want to start counting them) > > > My solution is to find the best way to solve a problem. If > > JDBC-ODBC doesn't > > work well in CFMX, but "pure" JDBC does, my solution may well be to > > recommend "pure" JDBC. > > Yes.. JDBC is a Solution/Alternative.. Not a fix to the software(cfmx) BUG. > > Example...CFMX had COM Issues...am not sure where it stands now... > Any COM functionality can be replicated very well through a Java Bean.. > So in your theory...Instead of MM fixing COM issues... you probably > will ask all your developers to re-write every COM in a Java Bean? > > You have really have interesting theories. > > Joe Eugene > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Dave Watts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 6:11 PM > > To: CF-Talk > > Subject: RE: The New Macromedia Website(ODBC) > > > > > > > > It's another thing to say that the product shouldn't have > > > > been released because of it. > > > > > > It might be your nature to release "BUG"/GY applications... > > > I Dont operate that way. > > > > So, you're saying that if there's ANY bug at all in CFMX, it > > shouldn't have > > been released? I'd still be waiting for my bug-free copy of CF 2 then! And > > how about my Windows NT 3.51 fixes - I'm still waiting! It's simply not > > practical to expect any software package of any complexity to have no bugs > > at all. > > > > > > Most bugs aren't trivial to the people who run into them > > > > > > Apparently its Trivial to most developers here...If something > > > doesnt work.. My solution is to get it fixed... Yours might > > > be to improve Product Manuals and perhaps buy the User Big > > > Eye Glasses... not a bad Strategy!. > > > > My solution is to find the best way to solve a problem. If > > JDBC-ODBC doesn't > > work well in CFMX, but "pure" JDBC does, my solution may well be to > > recommend "pure" JDBC. If there's some reason that's not acceptable, then > > that's a different matter. But I try to keep my expectations realistic. > > > > Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software > > http://www.figleaf.com/ > > voice: (202) 797-5496 > > fax: (202) 797-5444 > > > > > ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in ColdFusion and related topics. http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
RE: The New Macromedia Website(ODBC)
> So, you're saying that if there's ANY bug at all in CFMX, it > shouldn't have > been released I am NOT saying "ANY".. software is not perfect!. We are not talking about one specific issue... CFMX has had numerous issues... (Check Updater Docs... if you want to start counting them) > My solution is to find the best way to solve a problem. If > JDBC-ODBC doesn't > work well in CFMX, but "pure" JDBC does, my solution may well be to > recommend "pure" JDBC. Yes.. JDBC is a Solution/Alternative.. Not a fix to the software(cfmx) BUG. Example...CFMX had COM Issues...am not sure where it stands now... Any COM functionality can be replicated very well through a Java Bean.. So in your theory...Instead of MM fixing COM issues... you probably will ask all your developers to re-write every COM in a Java Bean? You have really have interesting theories. Joe Eugene > -Original Message- > From: Dave Watts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 6:11 PM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: RE: The New Macromedia Website(ODBC) > > > > > It's another thing to say that the product shouldn't have > > > been released because of it. > > > > It might be your nature to release "BUG"/GY applications... > > I Dont operate that way. > > So, you're saying that if there's ANY bug at all in CFMX, it > shouldn't have > been released? I'd still be waiting for my bug-free copy of CF 2 then! And > how about my Windows NT 3.51 fixes - I'm still waiting! It's simply not > practical to expect any software package of any complexity to have no bugs > at all. > > > > Most bugs aren't trivial to the people who run into them > > > > Apparently its Trivial to most developers here...If something > > doesnt work.. My solution is to get it fixed... Yours might > > be to improve Product Manuals and perhaps buy the User Big > > Eye Glasses... not a bad Strategy!. > > My solution is to find the best way to solve a problem. If > JDBC-ODBC doesn't > work well in CFMX, but "pure" JDBC does, my solution may well be to > recommend "pure" JDBC. If there's some reason that's not acceptable, then > that's a different matter. But I try to keep my expectations realistic. > > Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software > http://www.figleaf.com/ > voice: (202) 797-5496 > fax: (202) 797-5444 > > ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
RE: The New Macromedia Website(ODBC)
> We have a completely new search system in place now, so that > may address some of your concerns. I haven't checked it out yet. No problems in the last few days. ;^) But if it works, GREAT! I do agree with the other posters that bugs should get special treatment in the knowledge base - even quasi "documentation bugs" like setting up MX for multiple hosts and whatnot. Jim Davis ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for dependable ColdFusion Hosting. Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
RE: The New Macromedia Website(ODBC)
Hallelujah (about your search results, that is). :-) Deb -Original Message- From: Massimo, Tiziana e Federica [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 7:52 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: The New Macromedia Website(ODBC) I am not especially happy about the new website, but the search capabilities are drastically improved (they were often worthless in the past). I still have to use the new search more and try something more esoteric, but I can say for sure it's *much* better. I encourage to give it a try Massimo Foti Team Macromedia Volunteer for Dreamweaver Certified Dreamweaver MX Developer Certified Advanced ColdFusion MX Developer http://www.macromedia.com/go/team ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
Re: The New Macromedia Website(ODBC)
> I've often thought that Allaire's and now MM's knowledge base was very > weak. The articles are very difficult to find due to the poor searching > and often not specific enough to the many product versions in use. I am not especially happy about the new website, but the search capabilities are drastically improved (they were often worthless in the past). I still have to use the new search more and try something more esoteric, but I can say for sure it's *much* better. I encourage to give it a try Massimo Foti Team Macromedia Volunteer for Dreamweaver Certified Dreamweaver MX Developer Certified Advanced ColdFusion MX Developer http://www.macromedia.com/go/team ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
Re: The New Macromedia Website(ODBC)
We have a completely new search system in place now, so that may address some of your concerns. mike chambers [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: "Jim Davis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > I've often thought that Allaire's and now MM's knowledge base was very > weak. The articles are very difficult to find due to the poor searching > and often not specific enough to the many product versions in use. ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
Public Bug Base? was (RE: The New Macromedia Website(ODBC))
>Just out of curiousity what does MM use internally for defect tracking? > >I've often thought that Allaire's and now MM's knowledge base was very >weak. The articles are very difficult to find due to the poor searching >and often not specific enough to the many product versions in use. > >A really good knowledge base would eliminate the need (I think) for a >specific bug application. As it is we have a (relatively) poor >knowledge base and the forums... > >On the other hand, if you can afford it, live technical support is >generally superb. But that can't be the only option. > >Jim Davis Jim, they're already thinking about it: http://www.markme.com/mesh/archives/000817.cfm ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in ColdFusion and related topics. http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
Re: Day 3 Opera works! Re: The New Macromedia Website
On Friday, Mar 7, 2003, at 12:54 US/Pacific, Dave Watts wrote: > I hardly know where to begin. There are just so many reasons why it's > bad > for application interfaces. Just imagine if, for everything you did on > your > computer, you had to do it through an HTML interface. Just compare it > to the > desktop applications you use everyday. Ask anyone who has used both MS Exchange "webmail" and MS Outlook... I've seen a few Flash mail clients that allow the convenience and interactivity of Outlook in a portable, web environment. That's a good example of "HTML bad, Flash good" :) Sean A Corfield -- http://www.corfield.org/blog/ "If you're not annoying somebody, you're not really alive." -- Margaret Atwood ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in ColdFusion and related topics. http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
Re: Day 3 Opera works! Re: The New Macromedia Website
On Friday, Mar 7, 2003, at 07:14 US/Pacific, Willy Ray wrote: > Except for the Download page that tells Opera users to "Please Use a > Supported Browser". Baby steps, I guess. Hopefully they'll get that > working at some point soon. Opera does not currently support Flash Remoting properly which is why you cannot view the Rich Internet Applications on the site. We are working with the Opera team to resolve this. > The home page is working great. So, as a developer who's doing some > remoting, some RIAs (regardless of how *that* thread pans out), I'm > intensly curious: What *exactly* was the problem, and will it effect > me, as I build RIAs? The home page problem was two-fold: 1) we had & in the flashVars query string for the Flash movie but Opera did not convert it to & before passing the string into the movie so we changed it to just plain & (not XHTML compliant) so Opera would handle it correctly. 2) we called a JavaScript function from Flash that Opera didn't seem to like (works fine in other browsers) so we removed that call for the time being As for RIAs, see the comment above. This also applies to Safari - it does not yet support Flash Remoting properly - and we're working with the Safari team to resolve this. Sean A Corfield -- Director, Architecture Web Technology Group -- Macromedia, Inc. tel: (415) 252-2287 -- cell: (415) 717-8473 aim/iChat: seancorfield -- http://www.macromedia.com An Architect's View -- http://www.macromedia.com/go/arch_blog Announcing Macromedia DevNet Subscriptions Maximize your power with our new premium software subscription Find out more: http://www.macromedia.com/go/devnetsubs ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for dependable ColdFusion Hosting. Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
RE: The New Macromedia Website(ODBC)
> -Original Message- > From: Dave Watts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 5:39 PM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: RE: The New Macromedia Website(ODBC) > > > > I think one of the root causes of this kind of frustration > > is that it's very difficult to know what the status of a > > fix is. The bug list isn't public, and if it is available > > to anyone outside of macromedia they don't mention it anywhere, > > or are limited by some kind of nda. > > > > We ran into a bug yesterday (gethttpRequestData) that almost > > cost us a client, now for two hours we banged away at the > > problem until we figured out it had to be a bug, I searched > > cf-talk, and was able to confirm it was a known bug, and get > > working on a fix. Some kind of bug database would probably > > go a long way towards alleviating some frustration. Java, > > PHP, and MS all have public bug databases...why can't CF? > > All we have are the very few technotes which address maybe > > 1% of outstanding bugs. > > I wholeheartedly agree. This is something that various MM > people have said was in the works, but sooner would > definitely be better than later. (I'm not asking you specifically, Dave, just in general) There used to be a semi-public bug system as part of the beta site (beta.allaire.com). It worked tolerably well, what ever happened to that? Just out of curiousity what does MM use internally for defect tracking? I've often thought that Allaire's and now MM's knowledge base was very weak. The articles are very difficult to find due to the poor searching and often not specific enough to the many product versions in use. A really good knowledge base would eliminate the need (I think) for a specific bug application. As it is we have a (relatively) poor knowledge base and the forums... On the other hand, if you can afford it, live technical support is generally superb. But that can't be the only option. Jim Davis ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
RE: The New Macromedia Website(ODBC)
> > It's another thing to say that the product shouldn't have > > been released because of it. > > It might be your nature to release "BUG"/GY applications... > I Dont operate that way. So, you're saying that if there's ANY bug at all in CFMX, it shouldn't have been released? I'd still be waiting for my bug-free copy of CF 2 then! And how about my Windows NT 3.51 fixes - I'm still waiting! It's simply not practical to expect any software package of any complexity to have no bugs at all. > > Most bugs aren't trivial to the people who run into them > > Apparently its Trivial to most developers here...If something > doesnt work.. My solution is to get it fixed... Yours might > be to improve Product Manuals and perhaps buy the User Big > Eye Glasses... not a bad Strategy!. My solution is to find the best way to solve a problem. If JDBC-ODBC doesn't work well in CFMX, but "pure" JDBC does, my solution may well be to recommend "pure" JDBC. If there's some reason that's not acceptable, then that's a different matter. But I try to keep my expectations realistic. Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ voice: (202) 797-5496 fax: (202) 797-5444 ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
Re: The New Macromedia Website(ODBC)
At the time it was stated that it is some that we were considering. That has not changed at this point. mike chambers [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: "Joe Eugene" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 2:39 PM Subject: Re: The New Macromedia Website(ODBC) > >>Some kind of bug database would probably go a long way towards >alleviating some frustration. Java, PHP, and MS all have public >bug databases...why > > This was brought up about 3-4 months ago.. during the time of the LAST Community manager that left MM... > Nothing came out of if.. think he said.. he would put into request or something like that.. > > Yes.. this would be nice. > ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
Re: The New Macromedia Website(ODBC)
Kevin Graeme wrote: >>The problem that I see is that a lot of people who do nothing but complain >>about a *supposed* CFMX bug waste a lot of time because they >>refuse to call tech support. > > And how much does it cost to call Tech Support? I need to get a bug in > FlashMX addressed, but from their site it looks like it's now $200/incident > call. > > And even if they still do the "if it's a real bug then we'll refund you" I > still can't call because my purchasing department doesn't give out the CC. You indeed have a problem. Your best bet would be lists like this one (but then a little bit more Flash centered). If somebody posts a scenario to reproduce a bug with not to much effort to this list he will probably get a confirmation pretty soon. Then just wait until somebody who has the right connections with Macromedia confirms the problem. Jochem ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for dependable ColdFusion Hosting. Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
Re: The New Macromedia Website(ODBC)
>>Some kind of bug database would probably go a long way towards >alleviating some >>frustration. Java, PHP, and MS all have public >bug databases...why This was brought up about 3-4 months ago.. during the time of the LAST Community manager that left MM... Nothing came out of if.. think he said.. he would put into request or something like that.. Yes.. this would be nice. Joe ---Original Message--- From: jon hall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: 03/07/03 05:02 PM To: CF-Talk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: The New Macromedia Website(ODBC) > > Friday, March 7, 2003, 4:38:38 PM, you wrote: >> Am just bringing up issues here...FOR the General GOOD >> OF CFMX!. DW> It's one thing to say, hey, there's a problem and it should be fixed if DW> possible. It's another thing to say that the product shouldn't have been DW> released because of it. >> IF the Community/MM thinks a CFMX BUG is trivial, i can play >> along with that. DW> Most bugs aren't trivial to the people who run into them, I suppose. Nobody DW> is asking you to "play along" with anything. But that doesn't mean your DW> goals will be well served by your actions. I think one of the root causes of this kind of frustration is that it's very difficult to know what the status of a fix is. The bug list isn't public, and if it is available to anyone outside of macromedia they don't mention it anywhere, or are limited by some kind of nda. We ran into a bug yesterday (gethttpRequestData) that almost cost us a client, now for two hours we banged away at the problem until we figured out it had to be a bug, I searched cf-talk, and was able to confirm it was a known bug, and get working on a fix. Some kind of bug database would probably go a long way towards alleviating some frustration. Java, PHP, and MS all have public bug databases...why can't CF? All we have are the very few technotes which address maybe 1% of outstanding bugs. -- jon mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
RE: The New Macromedia Website(ODBC)
> I think one of the root causes of this kind of frustration > is that it's very difficult to know what the status of a > fix is. The bug list isn't public, and if it is available > to anyone outside of macromedia they don't mention it anywhere, > or are limited by some kind of nda. > > We ran into a bug yesterday (gethttpRequestData) that almost > cost us a client, now for two hours we banged away at the > problem until we figured out it had to be a bug, I searched > cf-talk, and was able to confirm it was a known bug, and get > working on a fix. Some kind of bug database would probably > go a long way towards alleviating some frustration. Java, > PHP, and MS all have public bug databases...why can't CF? > All we have are the very few technotes which address maybe > 1% of outstanding bugs. I wholeheartedly agree. This is something that various MM people have said was in the works, but sooner would definitely be better than later. Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ voice: (202) 797-5496 fax: (202) 797-5444 ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for dependable ColdFusion Hosting. Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
RE: The New Macromedia Website(ODBC)
>It's another thing to say that the product shouldn't have been >released because of >it. It might be your nature to release "BUG"/GY applications... I Dont operate that way. >Most bugs aren't trivial to the people who run into them Apparently its Trivial to most developers here...If something doesnt work.. My solution is to get it fixed... Yours might be to improve Product Manuals and perhaps buy the User Big Eye Glasses... not a bad Strategy!. >Nobody is asking you to "play along" with anything. I dont care... if BUGS do/dont get fixed in CFMX...perhaps others might.. who entirely depend on CF OR CF Tags. IF CFMX problems dont get fixed.. developers will eventually start looking at alternatives... Just Simple Fact. Joe Eugene ---Original Message--- From: Dave Watts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: 03/07/03 04:38 PM To: CF-Talk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: The New Macromedia Website(ODBC) > > > Am just bringing up issues here...FOR the General GOOD > OF CFMX!. It's one thing to say, hey, there's a problem and it should be fixed if possible. It's another thing to say that the product shouldn't have been released because of it. > IF the Community/MM thinks a CFMX BUG is trivial, i can play > along with that. Most bugs aren't trivial to the people who run into them, I suppose. Nobody is asking you to "play along" with anything. But that doesn't mean your goals will be well served by your actions. Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/";>http://www.figleaf.com/ voice: (202) 797-5496 fax: (202) 797-5444 ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for dependable ColdFusion Hosting. Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
RE: Day 3 Opera works! Re: The New Macromedia Website
> Yes if you could copy and paste from within flash, open > links in new windows and do everything you could with HTML > in standard i would be happy with flash. > > it is extremly annoying and i would hope flash EVENTUALLY > lets you do the same type things you can with html if it > is the thing MM wants to become the standard it has to > allow to do the things people have been doing for 10 years. All of those things seem appropriate for content, but less so for applications. I'd definitely stick with HTML for most content, I think. Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ voice: (202) 797-5496 fax: (202) 797-5444 ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
RE: The New Macromedia Website
> But what about the universal standard usability in HTML > based applications? The power of HTML is its standardization. > A drop down box is a drop down box no matter the browser, > OS, internet connection. A user who recognizes an underlined > word as a link, can assume that for all HTML based applications. > > You want to throw away everything the user has become > accustomed to, and rewriting your own rules of usability > for every application, and this is supposed to provide > the user with a better experience? Seems like you are > just going to alienate the user, and make surfing the > web increasingly difficult. When I read this, I had a real deja-vu moment. When I first started building web applications, these same arguments were used against them, by people building client-server applications - HTML simply didn't provide standard user interfaces like, say, every Windows application IDE (VB, Delphi, VC++, etc). In every typical client-server application, you had a very clear standard for forms-based interfaces, and they all pretty much looked alike and acted alike. Within HTML, on the other hand, you had pictures all over the place, there's no concept of a grid layout, and after every significant user action, you typically redraw the entire interface! Now, while people have gotten more or less used to that in their HTML interfaces, there's enough difference between many of them that it's very hard to apply consistent lessons, from a user's perspective. This problem is serious enough to keep Jakob Neilsen and his ilk in demand, so it obviously hasn't been solved yet. Flash, like HTML, allows the developer to make an interface unlike all the others, but it doesn't stop you from following common interface standards. All other things being equal, a Flash interface can provide more functionality than an HTML interface for an application; bad Flash interfaces may be worse than good HTML interfaces, but a good Flash interface can be better than a good HTML one. Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ voice: (202) 797-5496 fax: (202) 797-5444 ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in ColdFusion and related topics. http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
RE: The New Macromedia Website(ODBC)
I agree with Mr Watts here completely. - The people that are being /SO/ very critical, I have a few questions for you. 1) Are you willing to claim that your applications are 100% without errors? 2) Are you willing to STOP using software that contains errors? (better say no, or might want to uninstall any of the following - MS Office, MS Windows, MS everything. . . Bye bye computer =) Also, how active are you in helping get rid of these bugs? When windows prompts you to report an error do you send it to them? Or do you just click cancel? People are always talking about how Macromedia should foster a Community environment for their apps. I see them making real effort but instead of helping them get to the bottom of these issues, all I see is the usual piss and moan for the most part. I would be very interested to see how large the CF Bug DB (reported by users) is. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if it wasn't very large. If it weren't for Macromedia (and companies like them) we would not have many of the cool things we do. Practical always? No. But a good start towards a keen idea? Usually very much so. Think back a bit to the bloated performance nightmare Java applets with their flashy ripple water effects etc. What once was a language used for clunky front end eye candy and "bells and whistles", was replanned, reworked and reimplemented as one of the most robust server side languages in use (imo). It all has to start somewhere. In the end I would rather see Macromedia take a few swings at developing cool tools for use to build cool things with before getting it right, over seeing a company like M$ take a few swings then stamping it out because it doesn't fit the M@ "model" (whatever the hell that is anymore). /rant Sorry bout the rant folks, I know I very rarely chime in. This is just a subject that jabs me the wrong way sometimes. So, Kudos to Macromedia. With time and dedication /WE/ (that's right WE) will get it right...=) -chris -Original Message- From: Dave Watts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 3:39 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: The New Macromedia Website(ODBC) > Am just bringing up issues here...FOR the General GOOD > OF CFMX!. It's one thing to say, hey, there's a problem and it should be fixed if possible. It's another thing to say that the product shouldn't have been released because of it. > IF the Community/MM thinks a CFMX BUG is trivial, i can play > along with that. Most bugs aren't trivial to the people who run into them, I suppose. Nobody is asking you to "play along" with anything. But that doesn't mean your goals will be well served by your actions. Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ voice: (202) 797-5496 fax: (202) 797-5444 ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in ColdFusion and related topics. http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
Re: Day 3 Opera works! Re: The New Macromedia Website
Agreed. That is why the vast majority of the content in our site is in html. mike chambers [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: "Joe Eugene" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 1:22 PM Subject: RE: Day 3 Opera works! Re: The New Macromedia Website > >Of course, most of what's interesting on the Macromedia site is >content, and HTML is better for that. > > Dave.. Now you are talking! No need for complicated overhead.. when there is no need/use for it. > > Joe > ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for dependable ColdFusion Hosting. Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
Re: The New Macromedia Website(ODBC)
Friday, March 7, 2003, 4:38:38 PM, you wrote: >> Am just bringing up issues here...FOR the General GOOD >> OF CFMX!. DW> It's one thing to say, hey, there's a problem and it should be fixed if DW> possible. It's another thing to say that the product shouldn't have been DW> released because of it. >> IF the Community/MM thinks a CFMX BUG is trivial, i can play >> along with that. DW> Most bugs aren't trivial to the people who run into them, I suppose. Nobody DW> is asking you to "play along" with anything. But that doesn't mean your DW> goals will be well served by your actions. I think one of the root causes of this kind of frustration is that it's very difficult to know what the status of a fix is. The bug list isn't public, and if it is available to anyone outside of macromedia they don't mention it anywhere, or are limited by some kind of nda. We ran into a bug yesterday (gethttpRequestData) that almost cost us a client, now for two hours we banged away at the problem until we figured out it had to be a bug, I searched cf-talk, and was able to confirm it was a known bug, and get working on a fix. Some kind of bug database would probably go a long way towards alleviating some frustration. Java, PHP, and MS all have public bug databases...why can't CF? All we have are the very few technotes which address maybe 1% of outstanding bugs. -- jon mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
RE: The New Macromedia Website
> How can you say that XML has achieved it's popularity > solely on vendor actions? The spec and idea came first; > vendor support followed. There are many specs and many ideas; few make it to fruition and become useful products. XML is popular because there are a bunch of products that use XML, and because it embodies a really good idea and does it tolerably well. > I think that the circumstances are all different. Standards > bodies don't, as a rule ever drive development they, well, > standardize it. That's essentially my argument, in a nutshell. The original post that started this all off was arguing that standards drove development, if I recall correctly. My counterargument is that they may channel development, but they don't drive it, typically. > In the case of Flash vrs SVG it's not a fair comparison. > Flash is an application platform with full scripting and > animation capabilities. SVG is simple a file format for > vector graphics like an open CMX or WPG. I think that > it's VERY likely that Flash will accept SVG graphics as > input soon (just as it now accepts PNG, another W3C standard, > as input) but the two technologies aren't in competition. My comparison may not be fair, but I think it's accurate. While Flash is now considered an application platform, that's not how it started - back when it was called FutureSplash or whatever, it was a vector graphics and animation tool. As for SVG, the W3C might argue that it's more than just a file format for vector graphics: http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG/interact.html http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG/script.html http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG/animate.html But yes, really, there's no comparison - SVG isn't anywhere near Flash as far as what we can do with it, today. Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ voice: (202) 797-5496 fax: (202) 797-5444 ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for dependable ColdFusion Hosting. Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
RE: Day 3 Opera works! Re: The New Macromedia Website
>Of course, most of what's interesting on the Macromedia site is >content, and HTML is >better for that. Dave.. Now you are talking! No need for complicated overhead.. when there is no need/use for it. Joe ---Original Message--- From: Dave Watts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: 03/07/03 03:54 PM To: CF-Talk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: Day 3 Opera works! Re: The New Macromedia Website > > > I was reading Dave Watts post about HTML sucking earlier > and i am really curious dave why do you think it sucks. I hardly know where to begin. There are just so many reasons why it's bad for application interfaces. Just imagine if, for everything you did on your computer, you had to do it through an HTML interface. Just compare it to the desktop applications you use everyday. HTML (or rather HTTP) is stateless, HTML isn't event-driven, HTML controls are very limited, and so on. It's great for formatting documents for people to read. That's about it. > Sure it has a few weak points but all the nice pretty > flash is just pretty and its really a pain in the ass how > they implemented it on macromedia. I use the site everyday > i dont need pretty i need it to work and html does that > nicely. Of course html is annoying because its stateless > yadda yadda. I'm not a big fan of the "nice pretty flash", either. I like functionality and usability. But I do think that you can get more functionality and usability with Flash than you can with HTML for application interfaces. Of course, most of what's interesting on the Macromedia site is content, and HTML is better for that. Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/";>http://www.figleaf.com/ voice: (202) 797-5496 fax: (202) 797-5444 ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
RE: The New Macromedia Website(ODBC)
> Am just bringing up issues here...FOR the General GOOD > OF CFMX!. It's one thing to say, hey, there's a problem and it should be fixed if possible. It's another thing to say that the product shouldn't have been released because of it. > IF the Community/MM thinks a CFMX BUG is trivial, i can play > along with that. Most bugs aren't trivial to the people who run into them, I suppose. Nobody is asking you to "play along" with anything. But that doesn't mean your goals will be well served by your actions. Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ voice: (202) 797-5496 fax: (202) 797-5444 ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
RE: Day 3 Opera works! Re: The New Macromedia Website
> I was reading Dave Watts post about HTML sucking earlier > and i am really curious dave why do you think it sucks. I hardly know where to begin. There are just so many reasons why it's bad for application interfaces. Just imagine if, for everything you did on your computer, you had to do it through an HTML interface. Just compare it to the desktop applications you use everyday. HTML (or rather HTTP) is stateless, HTML isn't event-driven, HTML controls are very limited, and so on. It's great for formatting documents for people to read. That's about it. > Sure it has a few weak points but all the nice pretty > flash is just pretty and its really a pain in the ass how > they implemented it on macromedia. I use the site everyday > i dont need pretty i need it to work and html does that > nicely. Of course html is annoying because its stateless > yadda yadda. I'm not a big fan of the "nice pretty flash", either. I like functionality and usability. But I do think that you can get more functionality and usability with Flash than you can with HTML for application interfaces. Of course, most of what's interesting on the Macromedia site is content, and HTML is better for that. Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ voice: (202) 797-5496 fax: (202) 797-5444 ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
RE: The New Macromedia Website
> > For HTML this may have been the case, but market forces > > did force the companies to adopt the core standards > > fairly quickly. That's not stopping them from adding > > features (and the W3C isn't demanding that they don't) > > but it does level the playing field. > > So, again, what did the W3C contribute to this process? > Considering that the "core standards" were often driven by > what vendors introduced in their products? When did the TABLE > tag get introduced into the HTML standard - HTML 4? The W3C did create the core standards. When you truly consider the vendor created markup it really is a small subset (and much of it isn't in use any longer) - experimentation really. The core standards, as defined by the W3C, covered almost all the bases - vendor markup constituted wiz-bang stuff that's not even in use any longer for the most part. We don't see "Blink", "Marquee", etc anymore. Features that stood the test of peer review got added to the spec (such as iFrame) those that didn't were dropped. Even "popular" vendor additions (such as Netscape Layers) have receeded and been replaced by W3C standards as the ramifications of them were hashed out. The process IS long, but it is effective. This is also why the W3C, unlike many other standards bodies, make interim specs available constantly. > > I'm just put off by the extreme nature of your comments. > > There's no need to be put off; it's meant purely as an observation. > > > Also, and I'm worried that people simply don't know what > > the W3C IS anymore, please remember that the vendors you're > > talking about are not at odds with the W3C, they ARE the W3C. > > It's a mostly vendor-based group with ideas and direction > > coming from the vendor community. > > To call the vendors a "community" certainly weakens the value > of the word. They're direct competitors, and each values > interoperability only to the extent that it's in its own interest. Exactly - and that's one of the more useful aspects of the W3C - it allows all these vendors to come together and decide what's "right" for their collective interests. It is a community - or perhaps, considering the arguing, "family" might be a better word. ;^) > > Is there no room for moderation? Can you honestly say XML > > achieved the widespread adoption it enjoys solely due to > > vendor implementations? How about HTTP? > > Yes, I can say both of those things. I can also say that > vendors may have used those standards because of the pressure > applied by their customers, who want interoperability. My > statement was simply meant to point out that the W3C doesn't > make anything, in any meaningful sense. I don't dislike the > W3C, and I prefer their standards to the defacto "standards" > of individual vendors, but it's unrealistic to say they're in > control of what happens, because they're not. How can you say that XML has achieved it's popularity solely on vendor actions? The spec and idea came first; vendor support followed. It doesn't really matter HOW the vendors came to use the specs (out of the goodness of their hearts or customer pressure or mafia strong-arming), what matters is that the specification was created and followed. Without the former you could never have the latter. > > Lastly would it be so bad if, as you say, that the W3C > > "only" helped vendors do what they want to do? Assuming > > this means "in the least disruptive way" isn't that a good, > > needed and noble purpose? How would the landscape look > > today if there were no HTML or HTTP standards? > > I think you're reading too much intent into my previous post. > I'm simply saying that standards bodies don't drive > development, not that they're bad or useless or that we > shouldn't have them. However, as a case in point, compare SVG > to Flash, and ask yourself which is more likely to succeed, and why. I think that the circumstances are all different. Standards bodies don't, as a rule ever drive development they, well, standardize it. However in the W3Cs history there has been many cases where they pushhing development forward. There was no alternative vendor solutions to style-sheets for ricj formatting in HTML for example, or to XML for that matter. In the case of HTML is was a clear vendor push driving the tech forward (a vendor push created by the popular acceptance of the web). I think that the W3C specs for XHTML, XML and other foundational technologies will push forward the semantic web as well. But once that takes off then I expect the pendulum to swing the other way towards a more vendor driven model. In the case of Flash vrs SVG it's not a fair comparison. Flash is an application platform with full scripting and animation capabilities. SVG is simple a file format for vector graphics like an open CMX or WPG. I think that it's VERY likely that Flash will accept SVG graphics as input soon (just as it now accepts PNG, another W3C standard, as input) but
RE: The New Macromedia Website(ODBC)
> The problem that I see is that a lot of people who do nothing but complain > about a *supposed* CFMX bug waste a lot of time because they > refuse to call > tech support. And how much does it cost to call Tech Support? I need to get a bug in FlashMX addressed, but from their site it looks like it's now $200/incident call. And even if they still do the "if it's a real bug then we'll refund you" I still can't call because my purchasing department doesn't give out the CC. I simply can't get support from MM. The best I can hope for is an answer on a list like this one. -Kevin ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
Re: RE: The New Macromedia Website(ODBC)
Really Funny LOL.. When was the last time.. you read a Java Book on JDBC...? Every Java book..probably talks about advantages and disadvantages..of JDBC/ODBC Drives.. This is nothing new in CFMX Product Manuals.. I guess when you develop an application.. and you user complains something is wrong.. you probably tell him... "Oh.. I really didnt mean that to work!. That was left over code from BETA.."Have you read the manuals?.." I really did mention it in the manuals!." Do you want me to send someone to read the manuals to you? We really do have some passionate CF Developers...LOL :) Joe ---Original Message--- From: Andrew Tyrone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: 03/07/03 02:56 PM To: CF-Talk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: The New Macromedia Website(ODBC) > > > -Original Message- > From: Joe Eugene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 11:26 AM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: RE: The New Macromedia Website(ODBC) > > > Dave.. > >I know plenty of people running CFMX production servers right > >now. They might disagree with your conclusion about releasing > >too soon. Maybe if you want to use ODBC to talk to your AS400 > >DB2, but >that's a pretty small segment of users I suspect. > > I have been able to come up with an alternative (Java) solution > to every problem i have come across in CFMX..(*SO FAR*) and i > dont have a problem implementing them... > So i really DONT have to Bi**ch about something NOT working in CFMX... > Am just bringing up issues here...FOR the General GOOD OF CFMX!. > IF the Community/MM thinks a CFMX BUG is trivial, i can play > along with that. > > Joe Eugene The problem that I see is that a lot of people who do nothing but complain about a *supposed* CFMX bug waste a lot of time because they refuse to call tech support. It's always struck me that these same people would call tech support in a minute if they were sure it was a CFMX bug. I recall one of these people complaining about ODBC and how the disclaimer about it not being recommended was nowhere to be found. It was, however, in the documentation. Of course, people don't have time to read the documentation, but they have time to write 500 messages to cf-talk to say how crappy MM tech support is and that they shouldn't have to pay for support because they've found a bug in CFMX. I have a good idea: I think MM should have Christian Cantrell shipped via UPS with every CFMX purchase so he can read the documentation to everyone who feels he should know every installation caveat without ever reading anything about the product. He could also come with a roll of toilet paper. --Andy ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in ColdFusion and related topics. http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
RE: The New Macromedia Website(ODBC)
> -Original Message- > From: Joe Eugene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 11:26 AM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: RE: The New Macromedia Website(ODBC) > > > Dave.. > >I know plenty of people running CFMX production servers right > >now. They might disagree with your conclusion about releasing > >too soon. Maybe if you want to use ODBC to talk to your AS400 > >DB2, but >that's a pretty small segment of users I suspect. > > I have been able to come up with an alternative (Java) solution > to every problem i have come across in CFMX..(*SO FAR*) and i > dont have a problem implementing them... > So i really DONT have to Bi**ch about something NOT working in CFMX... > Am just bringing up issues here...FOR the General GOOD OF CFMX!. > IF the Community/MM thinks a CFMX BUG is trivial, i can play > along with that. > > Joe Eugene The problem that I see is that a lot of people who do nothing but complain about a *supposed* CFMX bug waste a lot of time because they refuse to call tech support. It's always struck me that these same people would call tech support in a minute if they were sure it was a CFMX bug. I recall one of these people complaining about ODBC and how the disclaimer about it not being recommended was nowhere to be found. It was, however, in the documentation. Of course, people don't have time to read the documentation, but they have time to write 500 messages to cf-talk to say how crappy MM tech support is and that they shouldn't have to pay for support because they've found a bug in CFMX. I have a good idea: I think MM should have Christian Cantrell shipped via UPS with every CFMX purchase so he can read the documentation to everyone who feels he should know every installation caveat without ever reading anything about the product. He could also come with a roll of toilet paper. --Andy ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
Re: Day 3 Opera works! Re: The New Macromedia Website
Open IE and right click on a link and you have save as. And then you can also copy and paste text from the screen. Stuff like that. You can take pictures and set them as your background for your display - Original Message - From: "Mike Chambers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 2:06 PM Subject: Re: Day 3 Opera works! Re: The New Macromedia Website When you talk about save as, and save as background, are you talking about the entire flash movie, or elements within the movie? In regards to the browser: http://www.markme.com/mesh/archives/001871.cfm mike chambers [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: "Bill Wheatley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 10:33 AM Subject: Re: Day 3 Opera works! Re: The New Macromedia Website > Its amusing how they blame it on the evil browser though ;) > > I love html and i actually hate alot of things about flash. I hate you cant > right click and view page location, do save as, set as background. If they > could get all that into flash then i'll be fine with the passing of html > until then get that "pretty" crap outta here. > ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
RE: The New Macromedia Website(ODBC)
Dave.. >I know plenty of people running CFMX production servers right >now. They might >disagree with your conclusion about releasing >too soon. Maybe if you want to use >ODBC to talk to your AS400 >DB2, but >that's a pretty small segment of users I >suspect. I have been able to come up with an alternative (Java) solution to every problem i have come across in CFMX..(*SO FAR*) and i dont have a problem implementing them... So i really DONT have to Bi**ch about something NOT working in CFMX... Am just bringing up issues here...FOR the General GOOD OF CFMX!. IF the Community/MM thinks a CFMX BUG is trivial, i can play along with that. Joe Eugene ---Original Message--- From: Dave Watts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: 03/07/03 12:04 PM To: CF-Talk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: The New Macromedia Website > > > > However, to put things bluntly, HTML sucks. > > Html might suck.. but it has driven internet..to where > it is today. Sure. That doesn't change the fact that it really, really sucks as an application interface. And who's to say that the internet wouldn't be in a better place today had things turned out differently? I've got a VHS VCR at home. Beta VCRs were much better (I used to have one). But I have a VHS because, well, that's the standard. That doesn't make it suck any less. > CFMX was re-written in Java as J2EE application, giving > developers the leverage to implement scalable applications... > and be productive(ROI). MM did a really good job...but > released too soon. I know plenty of people running CFMX production servers right now. They might disagree with your conclusion about releasing too soon. Maybe if you want to use ODBC to talk to your AS400 DB2, but that's a pretty small segment of users I suspect. > As for Flash and RIA.. its just another hype... > If anything is going to replace.. html...that will probably > be an open source technique..approved my W3C etc.. and when > all browser vendors agree to implement the alternative(RIA) > to "html"... that might be reality... If all browsers today support Flash, why would we need to wait for browser vendors to implement some other, as-yet-nonexistent standard? (I know SVG exists, I'm talking about nonexistent implementations.) Flash isn't perfect, but it's got a huge headstart over any competitors in that space. > until then.. "HTML" will rock.. JUST FACT! :) The fact is, we'll all continue using HTML for a while. I take issue with your argument that it'll "rock". It'll continue to suck for application interfaces. But someday, we'll all look back and shake our heads in disbelief that we actually used to write those things. Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/";>http://www.figleaf.com/ voice: (202) 797-5496 fax: (202) 797-5444 ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in ColdFusion and related topics. http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
Re: Day 3 Opera works! Re: The New Macromedia Website
When you talk about save as, and save as background, are you talking about the entire flash movie, or elements within the movie? In regards to the browser: http://www.markme.com/mesh/archives/001871.cfm mike chambers [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: "Bill Wheatley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 10:33 AM Subject: Re: Day 3 Opera works! Re: The New Macromedia Website > Its amusing how they blame it on the evil browser though ;) > > I love html and i actually hate alot of things about flash. I hate you cant > right click and view page location, do save as, set as background. If they > could get all that into flash then i'll be fine with the passing of html > until then get that "pretty" crap outta here. > ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
RE: The New Macromedia Website
Not to speak for Dave, but I think the big picture of his comments is "everything has a place". I don't think throwing out everything the users are accustomed to and alienating them would get any companies very far. I was just at a client's the other day, and we were going over a web-based calendar application. One of the complaints from one of the people was that "It isn't as easy or intuitive as Calendar Creator." Now, I had never used that specific application, and indeed, when she loaded it up, it WAS very intuitive. I don't think HTML is intuitive at all; we've all just become accustomed to its kludginess so we know how to go about navigating web-based applications far better than our clients do. >From what I've learned from most clients as to their preferences for web-based applications written in HTML is that they NEED more than just HTML. Applications built with only "standard" HTML form objects, unless you are adding other technologies to the mix (Flash, client-side Java, JavaScript and DHTML) are very counter-intuitive to the general user, no matter how much eye-candy is used to spruce it all up. As far as wanting to make the web more difficult by adding more client side functionality to combat the counter-intuitiveness of HTML, I'd argue that using that functionality depends on the type of application required by the client. Any shop that would use Flash JUST to use Flash has more to worry about than the usability of the applications they build. The bottom line is you have to give the client what they need, no more or no less. It's up to you and the client to determine what that is. --Andy > -Original Message- > From: Adrocknaphobia Jones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 2:07 PM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: RE: The New Macromedia Website > > > But what about the universal standard usability in HTML based > applications? The power of HTML is its standardization. A drop down box > is a drop down box no matter the browser, OS, internet connection. A > user who recognizes an underlined word as a link, can assume that for > all HTML based applications. > > You want to throw away everything the user has become accustomed to, and > rewriting your own rules of usability for every application, and this is > supposed to provide the user with a better experience? Seems like you > are just going to alienate the user, and make surfing the web > increasingly difficult. > > Adam Wayne Lehman > Web Systems Developer > Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health > Distance Education Division > > > -Original Message- > From: Dave Watts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 11:34 AM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: RE: The New Macromedia Website > > > > However, to put things bluntly, HTML sucks. It sucks really > > > bad. It's the worst thing to happen to application interfaces > > > in the short history of computing, next to the QWERTY keyboard. > > > The success of HTML interfaces has been in spite of this > > > awful step backwards in interface design, not because of it. > > > > HTML doesn't suck. It's a beautifully simple means of presenting > > textual information. And with CSS, the potential is there for > > it to be presented just as elegantly as any print-based layout. > > However, HTML wasn't designed to function as an application > > user interface. Which then gets to everything else you said. > > Yes, I just assumed that people would understand that I was criticizing > HTML > as an interface for applications. It's fine for content. > > Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software > http://www.figleaf.com/ > voice: (202) 797-5496 > fax: (202) 797-5444 > > > ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
Re: The New Macromedia Website
> But what about the universal standard usability in HTML based > applications? The power of HTML is its standardization. A drop down box > is a drop down box no matter the browser, OS, internet connection. A > user who recognizes an underlined word as a link, can assume that for > all HTML based applications. Yes and there will be universal usability of Flash (and from what I've seen a lot of common HTML functionality can be mimicked in Flashjust not many folks doing it). > > You want to throw away everything the user has become accustomed to, and > rewriting your own rules of usability for every application, and this is > supposed to provide the user with a better experience? Seems like you > are just going to alienate the user, and make surfing the web > increasingly difficult. YesI'd love to throw that out. There are plenty of HTML sites that break these rules as we speak (disabling right-clicking for starters) ;-) It's important to realize that Flash apps are the NEXT generation. HTML is all well and fine for the LIMITED user interfaces we now create. This limitation has put caps on what KIND of app we could build. Flash removes these limitations and allows for much more intuitive interfaces (and complex apps) to be built. The old has to go sometimesthat's evolutionDOS was nice...Windows is better ;-) Some folks will inevitably not like itwe have to start somewhere. If you build the interface correctly in Flash a user should be able to navigate it with ease and without a steep learning curve. Just remember to look at what we currently have on the web vs. what we CAN have on the web. I'm looking to the future Cheers Bryan Stevenson B.Comm. VP & Director of E-Commerce Development Electric Edge Systems Group Inc. t. 250.920.8830 e. [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Macromedia Associate Partner www.macromedia.com - Vancouver Island ColdFusion Users Group Founder & Director www.cfug-vancouverisland.com ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
RE: The New Macromedia Website
But what about the universal standard usability in HTML based applications? The power of HTML is its standardization. A drop down box is a drop down box no matter the browser, OS, internet connection. A user who recognizes an underlined word as a link, can assume that for all HTML based applications. You want to throw away everything the user has become accustomed to, and rewriting your own rules of usability for every application, and this is supposed to provide the user with a better experience? Seems like you are just going to alienate the user, and make surfing the web increasingly difficult. Adam Wayne Lehman Web Systems Developer Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health Distance Education Division -Original Message- From: Dave Watts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 11:34 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: The New Macromedia Website > > However, to put things bluntly, HTML sucks. It sucks really > > bad. It's the worst thing to happen to application interfaces > > in the short history of computing, next to the QWERTY keyboard. > > The success of HTML interfaces has been in spite of this > > awful step backwards in interface design, not because of it. > > HTML doesn't suck. It's a beautifully simple means of presenting > textual information. And with CSS, the potential is there for > it to be presented just as elegantly as any print-based layout. > However, HTML wasn't designed to function as an application > user interface. Which then gets to everything else you said. Yes, I just assumed that people would understand that I was criticizing HTML as an interface for applications. It's fine for content. Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ voice: (202) 797-5496 fax: (202) 797-5444 ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
RE: The New Macromedia Website
Jim (and Joe), First of all, my comments were a bit off-the-cuff yesterday... It'd been a long one so if I've offended please forgive. I think a standards body is good for shepherding *new* things which have not yet gelled. However, when it comes to pronouncements on technologies which have their own momentum via commercial interests... Well, imho standards bodies are irrelevant at that point. Market dynamics rule. Maybe not for the best reasons - certainly none to do with promoting the best technology - but that's market reality. I can't shake the feeling that - when taking on anything where commercial interests are at play - standards bodies (populated by those same interests) do more squabbling than anything else. Matt Robertson [EMAIL PROTECTED] MSB Designs, Inc. http://mysecretbase.com ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
RE: RE: The New Macromedia Website
> Not exactly.. there are some other technologies.. Again NOT > supported by all browsers... So didnt get popular.. Same > thing is going to happen to Flash/RIA.. HTML became popular > cause there is standard (W3C).. so will XML and the beauty of > it.. is.. > You are NOT learning/coding IBM's/MSFT's XML/HTML.. > YOU ARE LEARING/CODING HTML/XML just like Java.. its NOT > SUN's Java or IBM's Java... Its Java. > > Do you think all browsers support JavaScript the same way? > Man..leave alone that.. we have problems controlling fonts in > different browsers...(Just basic stuff)... > Inspite of all this...Flash/RIA, a proprietary technique is > going to be a standard? Yea.. maybe.. if MM releases it to > W3C and makes Flash open source. > > Hope all the other big players(IBM/MSFT/ORCL) and the W3C > will be happy to play along with MM's invention.. yeah right!. Like it or not, Flash is a de facto "standard". If every browser can use the Flash player, and most already have the Flash player, none of the other "big players" have to play along. HTML didn't become popular because of the W3C, it became popular because it was simple, and people could use it, and you could get free software (Mosaic, then Netscape) for it. As for proprietary HTML, well, we've all used that before, I'm sure, at one time or another. Sometimes it's been Netscape's, other times it's been Microsoft's. Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ voice: (202) 797-5496 fax: (202) 797-5444 ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
RE: The New Macromedia Website
> For HTML this may have been the case, but market forces > did force the companies to adopt the core standards > fairly quickly. That's not stopping them from adding > features (and the W3C isn't demanding that they don't) > but it does level the playing field. So, again, what did the W3C contribute to this process? Considering that the "core standards" were often driven by what vendors introduced in their products? When did the TABLE tag get introduced into the HTML standard - HTML 4? > I'm just put off by the extreme nature of your comments. There's no need to be put off; it's meant purely as an observation. > Also, and I'm worried that people simply don't know what > the W3C IS anymore, please remember that the vendors you're > talking about are not at odds with the W3C, they ARE the W3C. > It's a mostly vendor-based group with ideas and direction > coming from the vendor community. To call the vendors a "community" certainly weakens the value of the word. They're direct competitors, and each values interoperability only to the extent that it's in its own interest. > Is there no room for moderation? Can you honestly say XML > achieved the widespread adoption it enjoys solely due to > vendor implementations? How about HTTP? Yes, I can say both of those things. I can also say that vendors may have used those standards because of the pressure applied by their customers, who want interoperability. My statement was simply meant to point out that the W3C doesn't make anything, in any meaningful sense. I don't dislike the W3C, and I prefer their standards to the defacto "standards" of individual vendors, but it's unrealistic to say they're in control of what happens, because they're not. > Lastly would it be so bad if, as you say, that the W3C > "only" helped vendors do what they want to do? Assuming > this means "in the least disruptive way" isn't that a good, > needed and noble purpose? How would the landscape look > today if there were no HTML or HTTP standards? I think you're reading too much intent into my previous post. I'm simply saying that standards bodies don't drive development, not that they're bad or useless or that we shouldn't have them. However, as a case in point, compare SVG to Flash, and ask yourself which is more likely to succeed, and why. Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ voice: (202) 797-5496 fax: (202) 797-5444 ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in ColdFusion and related topics. http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
Re: Day 3 Opera works! Re: The New Macromedia Website
www.macromedia.com/security/ - Original Message - From: "Tony Weeg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 12:35 PM Subject: RE: Day 3 Opera works! Re: The New Macromedia Website :) no lynching here mang. I just happened to see it on cnn.com this morning, and thought id pass it along!! that's allsec. bulletins? where? ...tony Tony Weeg Senior Web Developer UnCertified Advanced ColdFusion Developer Information System Design Navtrak, Inc. Mobile workforce monitoring, mapping & reporting www.navtrak.net 410.548.2337 -Original Message- From: Stephen Moretti [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 11:54 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: Day 3 Opera works! Re: The New Macromedia Website http://www.macromedia.com/security That news is a week old... ;o) Sign up for the security bulletins Tony :oD Stephen (going home before Tony lynches him...) === CF-Europe http://www.cf-europe.org/ Olymia Conference Centre, London 29-30 May 2003 Keynote by Ben Forta and Tim Buntel Discount tickets before March 14th 2003 - Original Message - From: "Tony Weeg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 4:29 PM Subject: RE: Day 3 Opera works! Re: The New Macromedia Website > http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/internet/03/07/macromedia.warns/index.html > > just to throw a little bit of flame on the fire :) > > ...tony > > Tony Weeg > Senior Web Developer > UnCertified Advanced ColdFusion Developer > Information System Design > Navtrak, Inc. > Mobile workforce monitoring, mapping & reporting > www.navtrak.net > 410.548.2337 > > -Original Message- > From: Stephen Moretti [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 10:40 AM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: Re: Day 3 Opera works! Re: The New Macromedia Website > > > Thought this link might be of interest to you all. > > http://www.markme.com/mesh/archives/001871.cfm > > Its an article on Mike Chamber's blog, by Tony Lopez, Executive Producer > of > Macromedia. > > Please note the links to the survey and feedback pages at the bottom of > the > article. These are the appropriate places to make a response. > > Regards > > Stephen > == > CF-Europe http://www.cf-europe.org/ > Olymia Conference Centre, London > 29-30 May 2003 > Keynote by Ben Forta and Tim Buntel > Discount tickets before March 14th 2003 > > - Original Message - > From: "Willy Ray" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 3:14 PM > Subject: Day 3 Opera works! Re: The New Macromedia Website > > > > Except for the Download page that tells Opera users to "Please Use a > > Supported Browser". Baby steps, I guess. Hopefully they'll get that > > working at some point soon. > > > > The home page is working great. So, as a developer who's doing some > > remoting, some RIAs (regardless of how *that* thread pans out), I'm > > intensly curious: What *exactly* was the problem, and will it effect > > me, as I build RIAs? > > > > Willy > > > > > > > > >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 03/07/03 05:18AM >>> > > Ahh good I am quite happy now that it was finally fixed so I can see > > the > > site. > > That song on the front page is nice for all of 2 seconds and then it > > burns > > into your skull lol. > > > > But looks like its not quite as laggy as it was in ie other 2 days. > > > > Kudos MM for at least letting those people who like a good browser :) > > (Opera) to use your site. > > > > > > > > > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "Sean A Corfield" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 4:31 AM > > Subject: Re: The New Macromedia Website > > > > > > On Thursday, Mar 6, 2003, at 14:08 US/Pacific, Adrocknaphobia Jones > > wrote: > > > For the last few years I've been telling upper management that I can > > > cut > > > costs, raise quality, and employ less developers. Cold Fusion is the > > > solution for us. Am I supposed to go to them and say, I need 3 times > > > the > > > budget per project and quadruple my department size > > > > I'm not sure why you think you need to do this? No one is forcing you > > to abandon CF nor forcing you to use Flash - you can continue to se
Re: Day 3 Opera works! Re: The New Macromedia Website
I think the key here Kevein is for us as developers to develop UIs that are "better" than what is currently available with HTML without confusing users. Yes there will be some confusion, but if done right a new UI can be more intuitive than what users are used tothis is the benefit of RIAs. Granted there will be resistance to changethat's a fact of life...but we have to start somewhere. There will also be developers that create useless confusing peices of ;-) As with any new technology...it gets better over time or washes out Bryan Stevenson B.Comm. VP & Director of E-Commerce Development Electric Edge Systems Group Inc. t. 250.920.8830 e. [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Macromedia Associate Partner www.macromedia.com - Vancouver Island ColdFusion Users Group Founder & Director www.cfug-vancouverisland.com - Original Message - From: "Kevin Graeme" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 9:24 AM Subject: RE: Day 3 Opera works! Re: The New Macromedia Website > Yes, but the controls that HTML has all adhere to the interface standards of > the host OS. This is in contrast to Flash widgets that look and feel > differently not only within Flash in general, but in just about every Flash > UI environment you go to. And the scrollwheel not working is just another > example of how Flash RIA's are going to confuse and frustrate the users > because they don't behave "right". > > I love the Flash RIA concept. I intend to use it in some situations. But I > feel that it has a long, long way to go before it meets the useability needs > of a general audience. It's almost like there needs to be a way to call OS > controls within Flash, but then we're sort of getting into Java RIA > territory. > > -Kevin > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 10:43 AM > > To: CF-Talk > > Subject: Re: Day 3 Opera works! Re: The New Macromedia Website > > > > > > HTML hardly has any controls, compared to c/s environments such > > as VC++, VB, or Java. > > > > - Original Message - > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bill Wheatley) > > Date: Friday, March 7, 2003 9:26 am > > Subject: Re: Day 3 Opera works! Re: The New Macromedia Website > > > > > I was reading Dave Watts post about HTML sucking earlier and i am > > > reallycurious dave why do you think it sucks. Sure it has a few > > > weak points but > > > all the nice pretty flash is just pretty and its > > > really a pain in the ass how they implemented it on macromedia. I > > > use the > > > site everyday i dont need pretty i need it to work and html does that > > > nicely. Of course html is annoying because its stateless yadda yadda. > > > > > > > > > - Original Message - > > > From: "Stephen Moretti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 10:40 AM > > > Subject: Re: Day 3 Opera works! Re: The New Macromedia Website > > > > > > > > > Thought this link might be of interest to you all. > > > > > > http://www.markme.com/mesh/archives/001871.cfm > > > > > > Its an article on Mike Chamber's blog, by Tony Lopez, Executive > > > Producer of > > > Macromedia. > > > > > > Please note the links to the survey and feedback pages at the > > > bottom of the > > > article. These are the appropriate places to make a response. > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > Stephen > > > == > > > CF-Europe http://www.cf-europe.org/ > > > Olymia Conference Centre, London > > > 29-30 May 2003 > > > Keynote by Ben Forta and Tim Buntel > > > Discount tickets before March 14th 2003 > > > > > > - Original Message - > > > From: "Willy Ray" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 3:14 PM > > > Subject: Day 3 Opera works! Re: The New Macromedia Website > > > > > > > > > > Except for the Download page that tells Opera users to "Please > > > Use a > > > > Supported Browser". Baby steps, I guess. Hopefully they'll get > > > that> working at some point soon. > > > >
Re: Day 3 Opera works! Re: The New Macromedia Website
Yes if you could copy and paste from within flash, open links in new windows and do everything you could with HTML in standard i would be happy with flash. it is extremly annoying and i would hope flash EVENTUALLY lets you do the same type things you can with html if it is the thing MM wants to become the standard it has to allow to do the things people have been doing for 10 years. - Original Message - From: "Kevin Graeme" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 12:24 PM Subject: RE: Day 3 Opera works! Re: The New Macromedia Website Yes, but the controls that HTML has all adhere to the interface standards of the host OS. This is in contrast to Flash widgets that look and feel differently not only within Flash in general, but in just about every Flash UI environment you go to. And the scrollwheel not working is just another example of how Flash RIA's are going to confuse and frustrate the users because they don't behave "right". I love the Flash RIA concept. I intend to use it in some situations. But I feel that it has a long, long way to go before it meets the useability needs of a general audience. It's almost like there needs to be a way to call OS controls within Flash, but then we're sort of getting into Java RIA territory. -Kevin > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 10:43 AM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: Re: Day 3 Opera works! Re: The New Macromedia Website > > > HTML hardly has any controls, compared to c/s environments such > as VC++, VB, or Java. > > - Original Message - > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bill Wheatley) > Date: Friday, March 7, 2003 9:26 am > Subject: Re: Day 3 Opera works! Re: The New Macromedia Website > > > I was reading Dave Watts post about HTML sucking earlier and i am > > reallycurious dave why do you think it sucks. Sure it has a few > > weak points but > > all the nice pretty flash is just pretty and its > > really a pain in the ass how they implemented it on macromedia. I > > use the > > site everyday i dont need pretty i need it to work and html does that > > nicely. Of course html is annoying because its stateless yadda yadda. > > > > > > - Original Message ----- > > From: "Stephen Moretti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 10:40 AM > > Subject: Re: Day 3 Opera works! Re: The New Macromedia Website > > > > > > Thought this link might be of interest to you all. > > > > http://www.markme.com/mesh/archives/001871.cfm > > > > Its an article on Mike Chamber's blog, by Tony Lopez, Executive > > Producer of > > Macromedia. > > > > Please note the links to the survey and feedback pages at the > > bottom of the > > article. These are the appropriate places to make a response. > > > > Regards > > > > Stephen > > == > > CF-Europe http://www.cf-europe.org/ > > Olymia Conference Centre, London > > 29-30 May 2003 > > Keynote by Ben Forta and Tim Buntel > > Discount tickets before March 14th 2003 > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "Willy Ray" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 3:14 PM > > Subject: Day 3 Opera works! Re: The New Macromedia Website > > > > > > > Except for the Download page that tells Opera users to "Please > > Use a > > > Supported Browser". Baby steps, I guess. Hopefully they'll get > > that> working at some point soon. > > > > > > The home page is working great. So, as a developer who's doing some > > > remoting, some RIAs (regardless of how *that* thread pans out), I'm > > > intensly curious: What *exactly* was the problem, and will it > > effect> me, as I build RIAs? > > > > > > Willy > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 03/07/03 05:18AM >>> > > > Ahh good I am quite happy now that it was finally fixed so I can see > > > the > > > site. > > > That song on the front page is nice for all of 2 seconds and > > then it > > > burns > > > into your skull lol. > > > > > > But looks like its not quite as laggy as it was in ie other 2 days. > > > > > > Kudos MM for at least letting those people who like a good > > browser :) > > > (Opera) to use your si
Re: The New Macromedia Website
Yes BETA MAX rocked! - Original Message - From: "Dave Watts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 12:04 PM Subject: RE: The New Macromedia Website > > However, to put things bluntly, HTML sucks. > > Html might suck.. but it has driven internet..to where > it is today. Sure. That doesn't change the fact that it really, really sucks as an application interface. And who's to say that the internet wouldn't be in a better place today had things turned out differently? I've got a VHS VCR at home. Beta VCRs were much better (I used to have one). But I have a VHS because, well, that's the standard. That doesn't make it suck any less. > CFMX was re-written in Java as J2EE application, giving > developers the leverage to implement scalable applications... > and be productive(ROI). MM did a really good job...but > released too soon. I know plenty of people running CFMX production servers right now. They might disagree with your conclusion about releasing too soon. Maybe if you want to use ODBC to talk to your AS400 DB2, but that's a pretty small segment of users I suspect. > As for Flash and RIA.. its just another hype... > If anything is going to replace.. html...that will probably > be an open source technique..approved my W3C etc.. and when > all browser vendors agree to implement the alternative(RIA) > to "html"... that might be reality... If all browsers today support Flash, why would we need to wait for browser vendors to implement some other, as-yet-nonexistent standard? (I know SVG exists, I'm talking about nonexistent implementations.) Flash isn't perfect, but it's got a huge headstart over any competitors in that space. > until then.. "HTML" will rock.. JUST FACT! :) The fact is, we'll all continue using HTML for a while. I take issue with your argument that it'll "rock". It'll continue to suck for application interfaces. But someday, we'll all look back and shake our heads in disbelief that we actually used to write those things. Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ voice: (202) 797-5496 fax: (202) 797-5444 ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
Re: RE: Day 3 Opera works! Re: The New Macromedia Website
I don't believe that just because Flash has a more customizable interface design means HTML controls are better. Fact is, HTML controls are still very extremely limited, no matter what Flash has. - Original Message - From: Kevin Graeme <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Friday, March 7, 2003 10:24 am Subject: RE: Day 3 Opera works! Re: The New Macromedia Website > Yes, but the controls that HTML has all adhere to the interface > standards of > the host OS. This is in contrast to Flash widgets that look and feel > differently not only within Flash in general, but in just about > every Flash > UI environment you go to. And the scrollwheel not working is just > anotherexample of how Flash RIA's are going to confuse and > frustrate the users > because they don't behave "right". > > I love the Flash RIA concept. I intend to use it in some > situations. But I > feel that it has a long, long way to go before it meets the > useability needs > of a general audience. It's almost like there needs to be a way to > call OS > controls within Flash, but then we're sort of getting into Java RIA > territory. > > -Kevin > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 10:43 AM > > To: CF-Talk > > Subject: Re: Day 3 Opera works! Re: The New Macromedia Website > > > > > > HTML hardly has any controls, compared to c/s environments such > > as VC++, VB, or Java. > > > > ----- Original Message - > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bill Wheatley) > > Date: Friday, March 7, 2003 9:26 am > > Subject: Re: Day 3 Opera works! Re: The New Macromedia Website > > > > > I was reading Dave Watts post about HTML sucking earlier and i am > > > reallycurious dave why do you think it sucks. Sure it has a few > > > weak points but > > > all the nice pretty flash is just pretty and its > > > really a pain in the ass how they implemented it on > macromedia. I > > > use the > > > site everyday i dont need pretty i need it to work and html > does that > > > nicely. Of course html is annoying because its stateless yadda > yadda.> > > > > > > > - Original Message - > > > From: "Stephen Moretti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 10:40 AM > > > Subject: Re: Day 3 Opera works! Re: The New Macromedia Website > > > > > > > > > Thought this link might be of interest to you all. > > > > > > http://www.markme.com/mesh/archives/001871.cfm > > > > > > Its an article on Mike Chamber's blog, by Tony Lopez, Executive > > > Producer of > > > Macromedia. > > > > > > Please note the links to the survey and feedback pages at the > > > bottom of the > > > article. These are the appropriate places to make a response. > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > Stephen > > > == > > > CF-Europe http://www.cf-europe.org/ > > > Olymia Conference Centre, London > > > 29-30 May 2003 > > > Keynote by Ben Forta and Tim Buntel > > > Discount tickets before March 14th 2003 > > > > > > - Original Message - > > > From: "Willy Ray" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 3:14 PM > > > Subject: Day 3 Opera works! Re: The New Macromedia Website > > > > > > > > > > Except for the Download page that tells Opera users to "Please > > > Use a > > > > Supported Browser". Baby steps, I guess. Hopefully they'll get > > > that> working at some point soon. > > > > > > > > The home page is working great. So, as a developer who's > doing some > > > > remoting, some RIAs (regardless of how *that* thread pans > out), I'm > > > > intensly curious: What *exactly* was the problem, and will it > > > effect> me, as I build RIAs? > > > > > > > > Willy > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 03/07/03 05:18AM >>> > > > > Ahh good I am quite happy now that it was finally fixed so I > can see > > > > the > > > > site. > > > > That song on the front page is nice for all of 2 seconds and > > > then it &
RE: The New Macromedia Website
> -Original Message- > From: Dave Watts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 11:52 AM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: RE: The New Macromedia Website > > > > I agree that market factors can and do drive technology > > adoption, but a basic foundation must be in place first > > - and the W3C has given, and continues to give, us that > > foundation. It's not always on target (for example neither > > PNG or SMIL have particularly taken off) but what is? > > > > Flash may have achieved market dominance via pure market > > forces, but HTML, HTTP, CSS, SOAP, and XML have achieved > > market dominance via the work of the W3C. Niether force > > can be discounted or marginalized. > > I think I can safely discount and marginalize the > contributions of the W3C to a significant degree. They, like > any other standards body, are typically on the trailing edge > of technology, not the leading edge. The history of web > technology could glibly be summarized as vendors adding new > features, followed by the W3C adopting them into their > standards. Vendors adopt standards when it suits their > interests, and go their own ways when it doesn't. This seems > to be changing a bit, now, as interoperability becomes more > important to more people, but was especially true in the > early days of the web, when Netscape and Microsoft were > introducing new "HTML" tags in their browsers on what seemed > like a weekly basis. For HTML this may have been the case, but market forces did force thecompanies to adopt the core standards farily quickly. That's not stopping them fro adding features (and the W3C isn't demanding that they don't) but it does level the playing field. Also this didn't (and really couldn't) happen with W3C technologies like HTTP and XML. These are foundational technologies; enabling technologies. Almost by definition any well-thought out, peer-reviewed standard is going to "trail" current technology. The world is full of in-use technology that really just isn't that great (my favorite example is yENC on usenet) because it meets some need "well-enough". It then takes a standards body time to consider the ramifications of the technology and how it fit's into the broader picture. > > The W3C is also, I believe, the only organization that > > can bring about the promises of the Semantic Web, common > > Ontologies and many other foundational technologies. > > Don't get me wrong, I'm all for standardization. But the W3C > can't bring about doodly-squat. All it can do is help vendors > do what they want to do, if they want to do it. I'm just put off by the extreme nature of your comments. Is there no room for moderation? Can you honestly say XML achieved the widespread adoption it enjoys solely due to vendor implementations? How abot HTTP? Also, and I'm worried that people simply don't know what the W3C IS anymore, please remember that the vendors you're talking about are not at odds with the W3C, they ARE the W3C. It's a mostly vendor-based group with ideas and direction coming from the vendor community. In general there's a very distinct line between architectural technologies and presentational technologies. The W3C is much more likely to be a driving force in the former than in the latter. In the latter the W3C is generally seen as a baseline effort (with vendors claiming "standard plus" featuresets). Lastly would it be so bad if, as you say, that the W3C "only" helped vendors do what they want to do? Assuming this means "in the least disruptive way" isn't that a good, needed and noble purpose? How would the landscape look today if there were no HTML or HTTP standards? Would we, like we do in the graphics and office arenas being installing dozens of file-format filters with all or of our browsers to support all the other browsers? Would we even be able to see other browser content without a common transport mechanism? There is room, and a need, for both market drivers. The web is a controlled free market space. Controlled by the foundational rules laid out by the W3C. Jim Davis ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
Re: RE: The New Macromedia Website
"if MM releases it to W3C and makes Flash open source." Too late... http://www.openswf.org/ ~Todd At 09:38 AM 3/7/2003 -0500, you wrote: >Matt, > > > Joe, *what* have you been smoking? >smoking? Nah.. i passed it along*** :) > > >HTML has gotten the web where it is because it is the only game >in town. >Not exactly.. there are some other technologies.. Again NOT supported by >all browsers... So didnt get popular.. Same thing is going to happen to >Flash/RIA.. HTML became popular cause there is standard (W3C).. so will >XML and the beauty of it.. is.. >You are NOT learning/coding IBM's/MSFT's XML/HTML.. >YOU ARE LEARING/CODING HTML/XML just like Java.. its NOT SUN's Java or >IBM's Java... Its Java. > >Do you think all browsers support JavaScript the same way? Man..leave >alone that.. we have problems controlling fonts in different >browsers...(Just basic stuff)... >Inspite of all this...Flash/RIA, a proprietary technique is going to be a >standard? Yea.. maybe.. if MM releases it to W3C and makes Flash open source. > >Hope all the other big players(IBM/MSFT/ORCL) and the W3C will be happy to >play along with MM's invention.. yeah right!. > >Joe -- Todd Rafferty ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - http://www.web-rat.com/ Team Macromedia Volunteer for ColdFusion http://www.macromedia.com/support/forums/team_macromedia/ http://www.devmx.com/ -- ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in ColdFusion and related topics. http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
Re: RE: The New Macromedia Website
Matt, > Joe, *what* have you been smoking? smoking? Nah.. i passed it along*** :) >HTML has gotten the web where it is because it is the only game >in town. Not exactly.. there are some other technologies.. Again NOT supported by all browsers... So didnt get popular.. Same thing is going to happen to Flash/RIA.. HTML became popular cause there is standard (W3C).. so will XML and the beauty of it.. is.. You are NOT learning/coding IBM's/MSFT's XML/HTML.. YOU ARE LEARING/CODING HTML/XML just like Java.. its NOT SUN's Java or IBM's Java... Its Java. Do you think all browsers support JavaScript the same way? Man..leave alone that.. we have problems controlling fonts in different browsers...(Just basic stuff)... Inspite of all this...Flash/RIA, a proprietary technique is going to be a standard? Yea.. maybe.. if MM releases it to W3C and makes Flash open source. Hope all the other big players(IBM/MSFT/ORCL) and the W3C will be happy to play along with MM's invention.. yeah right!. Joe ---Original Message--- From: Matt Robertson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: 03/07/03 01:42 AM To: CF-Talk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: The New Macromedia Website > > Joe, *what* have you been smoking? HTML has gotten the web where it is because it is the only game in town. And standards??? W3C? There is only one thing that will drive market acceptance and that is market dominance; not a committee of any sort. Ever. Macromedia has gotten themselves installed on everybody's browser. Because of that, they are the standard. Because they've also got the mindshare at this point, they'll keep the lead. Unless of course they screw up somehow. And barring a Microsoft version of Flash (lets call it Flush) getting installed on every desktop as part of the next version of Windows. But either way, the process will be driven by market dynamics... Not a cabal of academics. Matt Robertson [EMAIL PROTECTED] MSB Designs, Inc. http://mysecretbase.com";>http://mysecretbase.com - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Site Design and ColdFusion Developer Tools ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
Re: Day 3 Opera works! Re: The New Macromedia Website
haha its probably just a trick to get people to get the latest player so they can view the new MM site :) j/k - Original Message - From: "Tony Weeg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 11:29 AM Subject: RE: Day 3 Opera works! Re: The New Macromedia Website http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/internet/03/07/macromedia.warns/index.html just to throw a little bit of flame on the fire :) ...tony Tony Weeg Senior Web Developer UnCertified Advanced ColdFusion Developer Information System Design Navtrak, Inc. Mobile workforce monitoring, mapping & reporting www.navtrak.net 410.548.2337 -Original Message- From: Stephen Moretti [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 10:40 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: Day 3 Opera works! Re: The New Macromedia Website Thought this link might be of interest to you all. http://www.markme.com/mesh/archives/001871.cfm Its an article on Mike Chamber's blog, by Tony Lopez, Executive Producer of Macromedia. Please note the links to the survey and feedback pages at the bottom of the article. These are the appropriate places to make a response. Regards Stephen == CF-Europe http://www.cf-europe.org/ Olymia Conference Centre, London 29-30 May 2003 Keynote by Ben Forta and Tim Buntel Discount tickets before March 14th 2003 - Original Message - From: "Willy Ray" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 3:14 PM Subject: Day 3 Opera works! Re: The New Macromedia Website > Except for the Download page that tells Opera users to "Please Use a > Supported Browser". Baby steps, I guess. Hopefully they'll get that > working at some point soon. > > The home page is working great. So, as a developer who's doing some > remoting, some RIAs (regardless of how *that* thread pans out), I'm > intensly curious: What *exactly* was the problem, and will it effect > me, as I build RIAs? > > Willy > > > > >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 03/07/03 05:18AM >>> > Ahh good I am quite happy now that it was finally fixed so I can see > the > site. > That song on the front page is nice for all of 2 seconds and then it > burns > into your skull lol. > > But looks like its not quite as laggy as it was in ie other 2 days. > > Kudos MM for at least letting those people who like a good browser :) > (Opera) to use your site. > > > > > > - Original Message - > From: "Sean A Corfield" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 4:31 AM > Subject: Re: The New Macromedia Website > > > On Thursday, Mar 6, 2003, at 14:08 US/Pacific, Adrocknaphobia Jones > wrote: > > For the last few years I've been telling upper management that I can > > cut > > costs, raise quality, and employ less developers. Cold Fusion is the > > solution for us. Am I supposed to go to them and say, I need 3 times > > the > > budget per project and quadruple my department size > > I'm not sure why you think you need to do this? No one is forcing you > to abandon CF nor forcing you to use Flash - you can continue to sell > your "CF is cheap" position and continue building great sites, > quickly. > CF is great for that. > > > But last month I > > noticed a large part of this community actively learning .NET. > > I'd hope large parts of this community would be constantly learning > about technology. That's what makes everyone a better programmer. > That's why people take courses, for example. > > > My underlying issue is that Macromedia is very fickle. I can't tell > you > > where they are going to be in a year. Which mean I don't know where > I, > > a > > MM developer will be in a year either. > > Well, I don't think anyone can realistically argue the new site hasn't > been fully sign-posted. Anyone who is surprised by our RIA deployment > has, frankly, been living under a stone :) > > And it is purely evolution. It's CF on the back end, several of the > apps are pure CF. Nothing shocking there. We have just four RIAs on > the > new site - there are five pure CF applications. People have been using > Flash UIs on CF apps for quite some time, certainly prior to the MX > launches. > > Macromedia has been roundly criticized for not using our own > technology > and for being a few releases behind the leading edge. Now we're up to > date. You can't really criticize us for pushing the envelope... > > Sean A Corfield -- Director, Architecture > Web Technology Gr
RE: Day 3 Opera works! Re: The New Macromedia Website
Yes, but the controls that HTML has all adhere to the interface standards of the host OS. This is in contrast to Flash widgets that look and feel differently not only within Flash in general, but in just about every Flash UI environment you go to. And the scrollwheel not working is just another example of how Flash RIA's are going to confuse and frustrate the users because they don't behave "right". I love the Flash RIA concept. I intend to use it in some situations. But I feel that it has a long, long way to go before it meets the useability needs of a general audience. It's almost like there needs to be a way to call OS controls within Flash, but then we're sort of getting into Java RIA territory. -Kevin > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 10:43 AM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: Re: Day 3 Opera works! Re: The New Macromedia Website > > > HTML hardly has any controls, compared to c/s environments such > as VC++, VB, or Java. > > - Original Message - > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bill Wheatley) > Date: Friday, March 7, 2003 9:26 am > Subject: Re: Day 3 Opera works! Re: The New Macromedia Website > > > I was reading Dave Watts post about HTML sucking earlier and i am > > reallycurious dave why do you think it sucks. Sure it has a few > > weak points but > > all the nice pretty flash is just pretty and its > > really a pain in the ass how they implemented it on macromedia. I > > use the > > site everyday i dont need pretty i need it to work and html does that > > nicely. Of course html is annoying because its stateless yadda yadda. > > > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "Stephen Moretti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 10:40 AM > > Subject: Re: Day 3 Opera works! Re: The New Macromedia Website > > > > > > Thought this link might be of interest to you all. > > > > http://www.markme.com/mesh/archives/001871.cfm > > > > Its an article on Mike Chamber's blog, by Tony Lopez, Executive > > Producer of > > Macromedia. > > > > Please note the links to the survey and feedback pages at the > > bottom of the > > article. These are the appropriate places to make a response. > > > > Regards > > > > Stephen > > == > > CF-Europe http://www.cf-europe.org/ > > Olymia Conference Centre, London > > 29-30 May 2003 > > Keynote by Ben Forta and Tim Buntel > > Discount tickets before March 14th 2003 > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "Willy Ray" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 3:14 PM > > Subject: Day 3 Opera works! Re: The New Macromedia Website > > > > > > > Except for the Download page that tells Opera users to "Please > > Use a > > > Supported Browser". Baby steps, I guess. Hopefully they'll get > > that> working at some point soon. > > > > > > The home page is working great. So, as a developer who's doing some > > > remoting, some RIAs (regardless of how *that* thread pans out), I'm > > > intensly curious: What *exactly* was the problem, and will it > > effect> me, as I build RIAs? > > > > > > Willy > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 03/07/03 05:18AM >>> > > > Ahh good I am quite happy now that it was finally fixed so I can see > > > the > > > site. > > > That song on the front page is nice for all of 2 seconds and > > then it > > > burns > > > into your skull lol. > > > > > > But looks like its not quite as laggy as it was in ie other 2 days. > > > > > > Kudos MM for at least letting those people who like a good > > browser :) > > > (Opera) to use your site. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Original Message - > > > From: "Sean A Corfield" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 4:31 AM > > > Subject: Re: The New Macromedia Website > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, Mar 6, 2003, at 14:08 US/Pacific, Adrocknaphobia Jones > > > wrote: > > > > For the last few years I've been telling upper management that > > I can > > > &g
RE: Day 3 Opera works! Re: The New Macromedia Website
:) no lynching here mang. I just happened to see it on cnn.com this morning, and thought id pass it along!! that's allsec. bulletins? where? ...tony Tony Weeg Senior Web Developer UnCertified Advanced ColdFusion Developer Information System Design Navtrak, Inc. Mobile workforce monitoring, mapping & reporting www.navtrak.net 410.548.2337 -Original Message- From: Stephen Moretti [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 11:54 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: Day 3 Opera works! Re: The New Macromedia Website http://www.macromedia.com/security That news is a week old... ;o) Sign up for the security bulletins Tony :oD Stephen (going home before Tony lynches him...) === CF-Europe http://www.cf-europe.org/ Olymia Conference Centre, London 29-30 May 2003 Keynote by Ben Forta and Tim Buntel Discount tickets before March 14th 2003 - Original Message - From: "Tony Weeg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 4:29 PM Subject: RE: Day 3 Opera works! Re: The New Macromedia Website > http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/internet/03/07/macromedia.warns/index.html > > just to throw a little bit of flame on the fire :) > > ...tony > > Tony Weeg > Senior Web Developer > UnCertified Advanced ColdFusion Developer > Information System Design > Navtrak, Inc. > Mobile workforce monitoring, mapping & reporting > www.navtrak.net > 410.548.2337 > > -Original Message- > From: Stephen Moretti [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 10:40 AM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: Re: Day 3 Opera works! Re: The New Macromedia Website > > > Thought this link might be of interest to you all. > > http://www.markme.com/mesh/archives/001871.cfm > > Its an article on Mike Chamber's blog, by Tony Lopez, Executive Producer > of > Macromedia. > > Please note the links to the survey and feedback pages at the bottom of > the > article. These are the appropriate places to make a response. > > Regards > > Stephen > == > CF-Europe http://www.cf-europe.org/ > Olymia Conference Centre, London > 29-30 May 2003 > Keynote by Ben Forta and Tim Buntel > Discount tickets before March 14th 2003 > > - Original Message - > From: "Willy Ray" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 3:14 PM > Subject: Day 3 Opera works! Re: The New Macromedia Website > > > > Except for the Download page that tells Opera users to "Please Use a > > Supported Browser". Baby steps, I guess. Hopefully they'll get that > > working at some point soon. > > > > The home page is working great. So, as a developer who's doing some > > remoting, some RIAs (regardless of how *that* thread pans out), I'm > > intensly curious: What *exactly* was the problem, and will it effect > > me, as I build RIAs? > > > > Willy > > > > > > > > >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 03/07/03 05:18AM >>> > > Ahh good I am quite happy now that it was finally fixed so I can see > > the > > site. > > That song on the front page is nice for all of 2 seconds and then it > > burns > > into your skull lol. > > > > But looks like its not quite as laggy as it was in ie other 2 days. > > > > Kudos MM for at least letting those people who like a good browser :) > > (Opera) to use your site. > > > > > > > > > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "Sean A Corfield" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 4:31 AM > > Subject: Re: The New Macromedia Website > > > > > > On Thursday, Mar 6, 2003, at 14:08 US/Pacific, Adrocknaphobia Jones > > wrote: > > > For the last few years I've been telling upper management that I can > > > cut > > > costs, raise quality, and employ less developers. Cold Fusion is the > > > solution for us. Am I supposed to go to them and say, I need 3 times > > > the > > > budget per project and quadruple my department size > > > > I'm not sure why you think you need to do this? No one is forcing you > > to abandon CF nor forcing you to use Flash - you can continue to sell > > your "CF is cheap" position and continue building great sites, > > quickly. > > CF is great for that. > > > > > But last month I > > > noticed a large part of this community actively learning .NET. > > &g
Re: The New Macromedia Website
> But when we take an application out of the traditional browser, which > the general consumer has _slowly_ grown comfortable with, we lose a lot > of the structure and barriers. A very small aspect would be the multiple > colors of active and visited links. From bookmarking and copying > shortcuts to form controls; the general user has become familiar with > these devices. > > When creating these applications is a flash-only environment, you are > taking all familiarity away from the user. That's actually the main problem I am facing as an user with the new MM website... I can't open links in new windows (my main "multitasking browsing" trick), I can't scroll using the mouse's wheel, I can't copy shortcuts to links and I am missing the link's info in my status bar too. Now, there are cases where loosing all those familiar features may be worth but, for most of the website, the trade-off doesn't look as a good deal. Please note I am speaking as a user right now, not a developer Massimo Foti Team Macromedia Volunteer for Dreamweaver Certified Dreamweaver MX Developer Certified Advanced ColdFusion MX Developer http://www.macromedia.com/go/team ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for dependable ColdFusion Hosting. Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
Re: The New Macromedia Website
> Don't get me wrong, I'm all for standardization. But the W3C can't bring > about doodly-squat. All it can do is help vendors do what they want to do, > if they want to do it. Watch that language Dave...you could make Ned Flanders blush with that potty mouth ;-) Bryan Stevenson B.Comm. VP & Director of E-Commerce Development Electric Edge Systems Group Inc. t. 250.920.8830 e. [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Macromedia Associate Partner www.macromedia.com - Vancouver Island ColdFusion Users Group Founder & Director www.cfug-vancouverisland.com ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
RE: The New Macromedia Website
> > However, to put things bluntly, HTML sucks. > > Html might suck.. but it has driven internet..to where > it is today. Sure. That doesn't change the fact that it really, really sucks as an application interface. And who's to say that the internet wouldn't be in a better place today had things turned out differently? I've got a VHS VCR at home. Beta VCRs were much better (I used to have one). But I have a VHS because, well, that's the standard. That doesn't make it suck any less. > CFMX was re-written in Java as J2EE application, giving > developers the leverage to implement scalable applications... > and be productive(ROI). MM did a really good job...but > released too soon. I know plenty of people running CFMX production servers right now. They might disagree with your conclusion about releasing too soon. Maybe if you want to use ODBC to talk to your AS400 DB2, but that's a pretty small segment of users I suspect. > As for Flash and RIA.. its just another hype... > If anything is going to replace.. html...that will probably > be an open source technique..approved my W3C etc.. and when > all browser vendors agree to implement the alternative(RIA) > to "html"... that might be reality... If all browsers today support Flash, why would we need to wait for browser vendors to implement some other, as-yet-nonexistent standard? (I know SVG exists, I'm talking about nonexistent implementations.) Flash isn't perfect, but it's got a huge headstart over any competitors in that space. > until then.. "HTML" will rock.. JUST FACT! :) The fact is, we'll all continue using HTML for a while. I take issue with your argument that it'll "rock". It'll continue to suck for application interfaces. But someday, we'll all look back and shake our heads in disbelief that we actually used to write those things. Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ voice: (202) 797-5496 fax: (202) 797-5444 ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
Re: Day 3 Opera works! Re: The New Macromedia Website
http://www.macromedia.com/security That news is a week old... ;o) Sign up for the security bulletins Tony :oD Stephen (going home before Tony lynches him...) === CF-Europe http://www.cf-europe.org/ Olymia Conference Centre, London 29-30 May 2003 Keynote by Ben Forta and Tim Buntel Discount tickets before March 14th 2003 - Original Message - From: "Tony Weeg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 4:29 PM Subject: RE: Day 3 Opera works! Re: The New Macromedia Website > http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/internet/03/07/macromedia.warns/index.html > > just to throw a little bit of flame on the fire :) > > ...tony > > Tony Weeg > Senior Web Developer > UnCertified Advanced ColdFusion Developer > Information System Design > Navtrak, Inc. > Mobile workforce monitoring, mapping & reporting > www.navtrak.net > 410.548.2337 > > -Original Message- > From: Stephen Moretti [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 10:40 AM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: Re: Day 3 Opera works! Re: The New Macromedia Website > > > Thought this link might be of interest to you all. > > http://www.markme.com/mesh/archives/001871.cfm > > Its an article on Mike Chamber's blog, by Tony Lopez, Executive Producer > of > Macromedia. > > Please note the links to the survey and feedback pages at the bottom of > the > article. These are the appropriate places to make a response. > > Regards > > Stephen > == > CF-Europe http://www.cf-europe.org/ > Olymia Conference Centre, London > 29-30 May 2003 > Keynote by Ben Forta and Tim Buntel > Discount tickets before March 14th 2003 > > ----- Original Message - > From: "Willy Ray" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 3:14 PM > Subject: Day 3 Opera works! Re: The New Macromedia Website > > > > Except for the Download page that tells Opera users to "Please Use a > > Supported Browser". Baby steps, I guess. Hopefully they'll get that > > working at some point soon. > > > > The home page is working great. So, as a developer who's doing some > > remoting, some RIAs (regardless of how *that* thread pans out), I'm > > intensly curious: What *exactly* was the problem, and will it effect > > me, as I build RIAs? > > > > Willy > > > > > > > > >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 03/07/03 05:18AM >>> > > Ahh good I am quite happy now that it was finally fixed so I can see > > the > > site. > > That song on the front page is nice for all of 2 seconds and then it > > burns > > into your skull lol. > > > > But looks like its not quite as laggy as it was in ie other 2 days. > > > > Kudos MM for at least letting those people who like a good browser :) > > (Opera) to use your site. > > > > > > > > > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "Sean A Corfield" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 4:31 AM > > Subject: Re: The New Macromedia Website > > > > > > On Thursday, Mar 6, 2003, at 14:08 US/Pacific, Adrocknaphobia Jones > > wrote: > > > For the last few years I've been telling upper management that I can > > > cut > > > costs, raise quality, and employ less developers. Cold Fusion is the > > > solution for us. Am I supposed to go to them and say, I need 3 times > > > the > > > budget per project and quadruple my department size > > > > I'm not sure why you think you need to do this? No one is forcing you > > to abandon CF nor forcing you to use Flash - you can continue to sell > > your "CF is cheap" position and continue building great sites, > > quickly. > > CF is great for that. > > > > > But last month I > > > noticed a large part of this community actively learning .NET. > > > > I'd hope large parts of this community would be constantly learning > > about technology. That's what makes everyone a better programmer. > > That's why people take courses, for example. > > > > > My underlying issue is that Macromedia is very fickle. I can't tell > > you > > > where they are going to be in a year. Which mean I don't know where > > I, > > > a > > > MM developer will be in a year either. > > > > Well, I don't think
RE: The New Macromedia Website
> I agree that market factors can and do drive technology > adoption, but a basic foundation must be in place first > - and the W3C has given, and continues to give, us that > foundation. It's not always on target (for example neither > PNG or SMIL have particularly taken off) but what is? > > Flash may have achieved market dominance via pure market > forces, but HTML, HTTP, CSS, SOAP, and XML have achieved > market dominance via the work of the W3C. Niether force > can be discounted or marginalized. I think I can safely discount and marginalize the contributions of the W3C to a significant degree. They, like any other standards body, are typically on the trailing edge of technology, not the leading edge. The history of web technology could glibly be summarized as vendors adding new features, followed by the W3C adopting them into their standards. Vendors adopt standards when it suits their interests, and go their own ways when it doesn't. This seems to be changing a bit, now, as interoperability becomes more important to more people, but was especially true in the early days of the web, when Netscape and Microsoft were introducing new "HTML" tags in their browsers on what seemed like a weekly basis. > The W3C is also, I believe, the only organization that > can bring about the promises of the Semantic Web, common > Ontologies and many other foundational technologies. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for standardization. But the W3C can't bring about doodly-squat. All it can do is help vendors do what they want to do, if they want to do it. Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ voice: (202) 797-5496 fax: (202) 797-5444 ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
Re: Day 3 Opera works! Re: The New Macromedia Website
HTML hardly has any controls, compared to c/s environments such as VC++, VB, or Java. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bill Wheatley) Date: Friday, March 7, 2003 9:26 am Subject: Re: Day 3 Opera works! Re: The New Macromedia Website > I was reading Dave Watts post about HTML sucking earlier and i am > reallycurious dave why do you think it sucks. Sure it has a few > weak points but > all the nice pretty flash is just pretty and its > really a pain in the ass how they implemented it on macromedia. I > use the > site everyday i dont need pretty i need it to work and html does that > nicely. Of course html is annoying because its stateless yadda yadda. > > > - Original Message - > From: "Stephen Moretti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 10:40 AM > Subject: Re: Day 3 Opera works! Re: The New Macromedia Website > > > Thought this link might be of interest to you all. > > http://www.markme.com/mesh/archives/001871.cfm > > Its an article on Mike Chamber's blog, by Tony Lopez, Executive > Producer of > Macromedia. > > Please note the links to the survey and feedback pages at the > bottom of the > article. These are the appropriate places to make a response. > > Regards > > Stephen > == > CF-Europe http://www.cf-europe.org/ > Olymia Conference Centre, London > 29-30 May 2003 > Keynote by Ben Forta and Tim Buntel > Discount tickets before March 14th 2003 > > - Original Message ----- > From: "Willy Ray" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 3:14 PM > Subject: Day 3 Opera works! Re: The New Macromedia Website > > > > Except for the Download page that tells Opera users to "Please > Use a > > Supported Browser". Baby steps, I guess. Hopefully they'll get > that> working at some point soon. > > > > The home page is working great. So, as a developer who's doing some > > remoting, some RIAs (regardless of how *that* thread pans out), I'm > > intensly curious: What *exactly* was the problem, and will it > effect> me, as I build RIAs? > > > > Willy > > > > > > > > >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 03/07/03 05:18AM >>> > > Ahh good I am quite happy now that it was finally fixed so I can see > > the > > site. > > That song on the front page is nice for all of 2 seconds and > then it > > burns > > into your skull lol. > > > > But looks like its not quite as laggy as it was in ie other 2 days. > > > > Kudos MM for at least letting those people who like a good > browser :) > > (Opera) to use your site. > > > > > > > > > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "Sean A Corfield" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 4:31 AM > > Subject: Re: The New Macromedia Website > > > > > > On Thursday, Mar 6, 2003, at 14:08 US/Pacific, Adrocknaphobia Jones > > wrote: > > > For the last few years I've been telling upper management that > I can > > > cut > > > costs, raise quality, and employ less developers. Cold Fusion > is the > > > solution for us. Am I supposed to go to them and say, I need 3 > times> > the > > > budget per project and quadruple my department size > > > > I'm not sure why you think you need to do this? No one is > forcing you > > to abandon CF nor forcing you to use Flash - you can continue to > sell> your "CF is cheap" position and continue building great sites, > > quickly. > > CF is great for that. > > > > > But last month I > > > noticed a large part of this community actively learning .NET. > > > > I'd hope large parts of this community would be constantly learning > > about technology. That's what makes everyone a better programmer. > > That's why people take courses, for example. > > > > > My underlying issue is that Macromedia is very fickle. I can't > tell> you > > > where they are going to be in a year. Which mean I don't know > where> I, > > > a > > > MM developer will be in a year either. > > > > Well, I don't think anyone can realistically argue the new site > hasn't> been fully sign-posted. Anyone who is surprised by our RIA > deployment> has, frankly, been
RE: Day 3 Opera works! Re: The New Macromedia Website
http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/internet/03/07/macromedia.warns/index.html just to throw a little bit of flame on the fire :) ...tony Tony Weeg Senior Web Developer UnCertified Advanced ColdFusion Developer Information System Design Navtrak, Inc. Mobile workforce monitoring, mapping & reporting www.navtrak.net 410.548.2337 -Original Message- From: Stephen Moretti [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 10:40 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: Day 3 Opera works! Re: The New Macromedia Website Thought this link might be of interest to you all. http://www.markme.com/mesh/archives/001871.cfm Its an article on Mike Chamber's blog, by Tony Lopez, Executive Producer of Macromedia. Please note the links to the survey and feedback pages at the bottom of the article. These are the appropriate places to make a response. Regards Stephen == CF-Europe http://www.cf-europe.org/ Olymia Conference Centre, London 29-30 May 2003 Keynote by Ben Forta and Tim Buntel Discount tickets before March 14th 2003 - Original Message - From: "Willy Ray" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 3:14 PM Subject: Day 3 Opera works! Re: The New Macromedia Website > Except for the Download page that tells Opera users to "Please Use a > Supported Browser". Baby steps, I guess. Hopefully they'll get that > working at some point soon. > > The home page is working great. So, as a developer who's doing some > remoting, some RIAs (regardless of how *that* thread pans out), I'm > intensly curious: What *exactly* was the problem, and will it effect > me, as I build RIAs? > > Willy > > > > >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 03/07/03 05:18AM >>> > Ahh good I am quite happy now that it was finally fixed so I can see > the > site. > That song on the front page is nice for all of 2 seconds and then it > burns > into your skull lol. > > But looks like its not quite as laggy as it was in ie other 2 days. > > Kudos MM for at least letting those people who like a good browser :) > (Opera) to use your site. > > > > > > - Original Message - > From: "Sean A Corfield" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 4:31 AM > Subject: Re: The New Macromedia Website > > > On Thursday, Mar 6, 2003, at 14:08 US/Pacific, Adrocknaphobia Jones > wrote: > > For the last few years I've been telling upper management that I can > > cut > > costs, raise quality, and employ less developers. Cold Fusion is the > > solution for us. Am I supposed to go to them and say, I need 3 times > > the > > budget per project and quadruple my department size > > I'm not sure why you think you need to do this? No one is forcing you > to abandon CF nor forcing you to use Flash - you can continue to sell > your "CF is cheap" position and continue building great sites, > quickly. > CF is great for that. > > > But last month I > > noticed a large part of this community actively learning .NET. > > I'd hope large parts of this community would be constantly learning > about technology. That's what makes everyone a better programmer. > That's why people take courses, for example. > > > My underlying issue is that Macromedia is very fickle. I can't tell > you > > where they are going to be in a year. Which mean I don't know where > I, > > a > > MM developer will be in a year either. > > Well, I don't think anyone can realistically argue the new site hasn't > been fully sign-posted. Anyone who is surprised by our RIA deployment > has, frankly, been living under a stone :) > > And it is purely evolution. It's CF on the back end, several of the > apps are pure CF. Nothing shocking there. We have just four RIAs on > the > new site - there are five pure CF applications. People have been using > Flash UIs on CF apps for quite some time, certainly prior to the MX > launches. > > Macromedia has been roundly criticized for not using our own > technology > and for being a few releases behind the leading edge. Now we're up to > date. You can't really criticize us for pushing the envelope... > > Sean A Corfield -- Director, Architecture > Web Technology Group -- Macromedia, Inc. > tel: (415) 252-2287 -- cell: (415) 717-8473 > aim/iChat: seancorfield -- http://www.macromedia.com > An Architect's View -- http://www.macromedia.com/go/arch_blog > > Announcing Macromedia DevNet Subscriptions > Maximize your power with our new premium software subscription &g
RE: The New Macromedia Website
> > However, to put things bluntly, HTML sucks. It sucks really > > bad. It's the worst thing to happen to application interfaces > > in the short history of computing, next to the QWERTY keyboard. > > The success of HTML interfaces has been in spite of this > > awful step backwards in interface design, not because of it. > > HTML doesn't suck. It's a beautifully simple means of presenting > textual information. And with CSS, the potential is there for > it to be presented just as elegantly as any print-based layout. > However, HTML wasn't designed to function as an application > user interface. Which then gets to everything else you said. Yes, I just assumed that people would understand that I was criticizing HTML as an interface for applications. It's fine for content. Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ voice: (202) 797-5496 fax: (202) 797-5444 ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for dependable ColdFusion Hosting. Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
Re: Day 3 Opera works! Re: The New Macromedia Website
I was reading Dave Watts post about HTML sucking earlier and i am really curious dave why do you think it sucks. Sure it has a few weak points but all the nice pretty flash is just pretty and its really a pain in the ass how they implemented it on macromedia. I use the site everyday i dont need pretty i need it to work and html does that nicely. Of course html is annoying because its stateless yadda yadda. - Original Message - From: "Stephen Moretti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 10:40 AM Subject: Re: Day 3 Opera works! Re: The New Macromedia Website Thought this link might be of interest to you all. http://www.markme.com/mesh/archives/001871.cfm Its an article on Mike Chamber's blog, by Tony Lopez, Executive Producer of Macromedia. Please note the links to the survey and feedback pages at the bottom of the article. These are the appropriate places to make a response. Regards Stephen == CF-Europe http://www.cf-europe.org/ Olymia Conference Centre, London 29-30 May 2003 Keynote by Ben Forta and Tim Buntel Discount tickets before March 14th 2003 - Original Message - From: "Willy Ray" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 3:14 PM Subject: Day 3 Opera works! Re: The New Macromedia Website > Except for the Download page that tells Opera users to "Please Use a > Supported Browser". Baby steps, I guess. Hopefully they'll get that > working at some point soon. > > The home page is working great. So, as a developer who's doing some > remoting, some RIAs (regardless of how *that* thread pans out), I'm > intensly curious: What *exactly* was the problem, and will it effect > me, as I build RIAs? > > Willy > > > > >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 03/07/03 05:18AM >>> > Ahh good I am quite happy now that it was finally fixed so I can see > the > site. > That song on the front page is nice for all of 2 seconds and then it > burns > into your skull lol. > > But looks like its not quite as laggy as it was in ie other 2 days. > > Kudos MM for at least letting those people who like a good browser :) > (Opera) to use your site. > > > > > > - Original Message - > From: "Sean A Corfield" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 4:31 AM > Subject: Re: The New Macromedia Website > > > On Thursday, Mar 6, 2003, at 14:08 US/Pacific, Adrocknaphobia Jones > wrote: > > For the last few years I've been telling upper management that I can > > cut > > costs, raise quality, and employ less developers. Cold Fusion is the > > solution for us. Am I supposed to go to them and say, I need 3 times > > the > > budget per project and quadruple my department size > > I'm not sure why you think you need to do this? No one is forcing you > to abandon CF nor forcing you to use Flash - you can continue to sell > your "CF is cheap" position and continue building great sites, > quickly. > CF is great for that. > > > But last month I > > noticed a large part of this community actively learning .NET. > > I'd hope large parts of this community would be constantly learning > about technology. That's what makes everyone a better programmer. > That's why people take courses, for example. > > > My underlying issue is that Macromedia is very fickle. I can't tell > you > > where they are going to be in a year. Which mean I don't know where > I, > > a > > MM developer will be in a year either. > > Well, I don't think anyone can realistically argue the new site hasn't > been fully sign-posted. Anyone who is surprised by our RIA deployment > has, frankly, been living under a stone :) > > And it is purely evolution. It's CF on the back end, several of the > apps are pure CF. Nothing shocking there. We have just four RIAs on > the > new site - there are five pure CF applications. People have been using > Flash UIs on CF apps for quite some time, certainly prior to the MX > launches. > > Macromedia has been roundly criticized for not using our own > technology > and for being a few releases behind the leading edge. Now we're up to > date. You can't really criticize us for pushing the envelope... > > Sean A Corfield -- Director, Architecture > Web Technology Group -- Macromedia, Inc. > tel: (415) 252-2287 -- cell: (415) 717-8473 > aim/iChat: seancorfield -- http://www.macromedia.com > An Architect's View -- http://www.macromedia.com/go/arch_blog > >
RE: The New Macromedia Website
Todd I think that is where the pitfall with RIA lies. Sure I could design an RIA by myself. I've got extensive CF experience, very comfortable with CFMX and remoting as well as Flash/Actionscript. But when we take an application out of the traditional browser, which the general consumer has _slowly_ grown comfortable with, we lose a lot of the structure and barriers. A very small aspect would be the multiple colors of active and visited links. From bookmarking and copying shortcuts to form controls; the general user has become familiar with these devices. When creating these applications is a flash-only environment, you are taking all familiarity away from the user. Every application will be a completely new experience to the user. Things that they were comfortable in the past no longer exists and a user is forced to learn how to use each application on their own from scratch. This is why usability has suddenly become a more predominant issue. Personally I wouldn't feel comfortable at all deploying an RIA that only a designer and programmer developed. I would want a usability expert to spend just as much time, if not more, than we spent coding and developing the application, to ensure a user will be able to use it. Although and RIA can be developed with a very small team, I'm weary of the overall effectiveness. Again, I'm not trying to bash MM for forward thinking. I'm merely trying to figure out why there is a concerning amount of malcontent among MM developers. Adam Wayne Lehman Web Systems Developer Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health Distance Education Division -Original Message- From: Todd Rafferty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 6:56 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: The New Macromedia Website At 05:08 PM 3/6/2003 -0500, Adrocknaphobia Jones wrote: >My underlying issue is that Macromedia is very fickle. I can't tell you >where they are going to be in a year. Which mean I don't know where I, a >MM developer will be in a year either. Then don't upgrade? Keep the current version you have and remain a happy camper? Don't do any RIA development. RIA is nothing more than MM trying to set a trend. You can either jump on the trend bandwagon or you can look for another trend. Currently, where I work ... we're developing our first RIA website for a lawyer firm. Basically the whole public side is going to be done in flash. We're also offering a low bandwidth side, not because we have too, but because we realize that not everyone wants to jump on the flash bandwagon and I showed my bosses that it is entirely possible to build both the static and flash site at the same time using the same CFCs. We have one flash developer in-house that has never done remoting before in his life and ... right now, he's making it look all too easy. He's enjoying it, it's something new for him. So far it has NOT increased ANY additional time or money necessary for us to complete this website. It should be launched by the end of April and everything is right on schedule as it stands. It will be using CFMX for the backend/admin and Flash MX/Remoting/CFMX for the front end. So, it's a choice... either your clients want it or they won't. Either you will do it or you won't. Just one man's opinion, ~Todd -- Todd Rafferty ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - http://www.web-rat.com/ Team Macromedia Volunteer for ColdFusion http://www.macromedia.com/support/forums/team_macromedia/ http://www.devmx.com/ -- ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
Re: Day 3 Opera works! Re: The New Macromedia Website
Thought this link might be of interest to you all. http://www.markme.com/mesh/archives/001871.cfm Its an article on Mike Chamber's blog, by Tony Lopez, Executive Producer of Macromedia. Please note the links to the survey and feedback pages at the bottom of the article. These are the appropriate places to make a response. Regards Stephen == CF-Europe http://www.cf-europe.org/ Olymia Conference Centre, London 29-30 May 2003 Keynote by Ben Forta and Tim Buntel Discount tickets before March 14th 2003 - Original Message - From: "Willy Ray" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 3:14 PM Subject: Day 3 Opera works! Re: The New Macromedia Website > Except for the Download page that tells Opera users to "Please Use a > Supported Browser". Baby steps, I guess. Hopefully they'll get that > working at some point soon. > > The home page is working great. So, as a developer who's doing some > remoting, some RIAs (regardless of how *that* thread pans out), I'm > intensly curious: What *exactly* was the problem, and will it effect > me, as I build RIAs? > > Willy > > > > >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 03/07/03 05:18AM >>> > Ahh good I am quite happy now that it was finally fixed so I can see > the > site. > That song on the front page is nice for all of 2 seconds and then it > burns > into your skull lol. > > But looks like its not quite as laggy as it was in ie other 2 days. > > Kudos MM for at least letting those people who like a good browser :) > (Opera) to use your site. > > > > > > - Original Message - > From: "Sean A Corfield" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 4:31 AM > Subject: Re: The New Macromedia Website > > > On Thursday, Mar 6, 2003, at 14:08 US/Pacific, Adrocknaphobia Jones > wrote: > > For the last few years I've been telling upper management that I can > > cut > > costs, raise quality, and employ less developers. Cold Fusion is the > > solution for us. Am I supposed to go to them and say, I need 3 times > > the > > budget per project and quadruple my department size > > I'm not sure why you think you need to do this? No one is forcing you > to abandon CF nor forcing you to use Flash - you can continue to sell > your "CF is cheap" position and continue building great sites, > quickly. > CF is great for that. > > > But last month I > > noticed a large part of this community actively learning .NET. > > I'd hope large parts of this community would be constantly learning > about technology. That's what makes everyone a better programmer. > That's why people take courses, for example. > > > My underlying issue is that Macromedia is very fickle. I can't tell > you > > where they are going to be in a year. Which mean I don't know where > I, > > a > > MM developer will be in a year either. > > Well, I don't think anyone can realistically argue the new site hasn't > been fully sign-posted. Anyone who is surprised by our RIA deployment > has, frankly, been living under a stone :) > > And it is purely evolution. It's CF on the back end, several of the > apps are pure CF. Nothing shocking there. We have just four RIAs on > the > new site - there are five pure CF applications. People have been using > Flash UIs on CF apps for quite some time, certainly prior to the MX > launches. > > Macromedia has been roundly criticized for not using our own > technology > and for being a few releases behind the leading edge. Now we're up to > date. You can't really criticize us for pushing the envelope... > > Sean A Corfield -- Director, Architecture > Web Technology Group -- Macromedia, Inc. > tel: (415) 252-2287 -- cell: (415) 717-8473 > aim/iChat: seancorfield -- http://www.macromedia.com > An Architect's View -- http://www.macromedia.com/go/arch_blog > > Announcing Macromedia DevNet Subscriptions > Maximize your power with our new premium software subscription > Find out more: http://www.macromedia.com/go/devnetsubs > > > > ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for dependable ColdFusion Hosting. Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
Re: Day 3 Opera works! Re: The New Macromedia Website
Its amusing how they blame it on the evil browser though ;) I love html and i actually hate alot of things about flash. I hate you cant right click and view page location, do save as, set as background. If they could get all that into flash then i'll be fine with the passing of html until then get that "pretty" crap outta here. - Original Message - From: "Willy Ray" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 10:14 AM Subject: Day 3 Opera works! Re: The New Macromedia Website Except for the Download page that tells Opera users to "Please Use a Supported Browser". Baby steps, I guess. Hopefully they'll get that working at some point soon. The home page is working great. So, as a developer who's doing some remoting, some RIAs (regardless of how *that* thread pans out), I'm intensly curious: What *exactly* was the problem, and will it effect me, as I build RIAs? Willy >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 03/07/03 05:18AM >>> Ahh good I am quite happy now that it was finally fixed so I can see the site. That song on the front page is nice for all of 2 seconds and then it burns into your skull lol. But looks like its not quite as laggy as it was in ie other 2 days. Kudos MM for at least letting those people who like a good browser :) (Opera) to use your site. - Original Message - From: "Sean A Corfield" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 4:31 AM Subject: Re: The New Macromedia Website On Thursday, Mar 6, 2003, at 14:08 US/Pacific, Adrocknaphobia Jones wrote: > For the last few years I've been telling upper management that I can > cut > costs, raise quality, and employ less developers. Cold Fusion is the > solution for us. Am I supposed to go to them and say, I need 3 times > the > budget per project and quadruple my department size I'm not sure why you think you need to do this? No one is forcing you to abandon CF nor forcing you to use Flash - you can continue to sell your "CF is cheap" position and continue building great sites, quickly. CF is great for that. > But last month I > noticed a large part of this community actively learning .NET. I'd hope large parts of this community would be constantly learning about technology. That's what makes everyone a better programmer. That's why people take courses, for example. > My underlying issue is that Macromedia is very fickle. I can't tell you > where they are going to be in a year. Which mean I don't know where I, > a > MM developer will be in a year either. Well, I don't think anyone can realistically argue the new site hasn't been fully sign-posted. Anyone who is surprised by our RIA deployment has, frankly, been living under a stone :) And it is purely evolution. It's CF on the back end, several of the apps are pure CF. Nothing shocking there. We have just four RIAs on the new site - there are five pure CF applications. People have been using Flash UIs on CF apps for quite some time, certainly prior to the MX launches. Macromedia has been roundly criticized for not using our own technology and for being a few releases behind the leading edge. Now we're up to date. You can't really criticize us for pushing the envelope... Sean A Corfield -- Director, Architecture Web Technology Group -- Macromedia, Inc. tel: (415) 252-2287 -- cell: (415) 717-8473 aim/iChat: seancorfield -- http://www.macromedia.com An Architect's View -- http://www.macromedia.com/go/arch_blog Announcing Macromedia DevNet Subscriptions Maximize your power with our new premium software subscription Find out more: http://www.macromedia.com/go/devnetsubs ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
RE: Day 3 Opera works! Re: The New Macromedia Website
Whats a real arse is the fact you have to sign-in today anything but as soon as you do, you are presented with a load of survey bollox and not the page you actually requested. -Original Message- From: Willy Ray [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 07 March 2003 15:14 To: CF-Talk Subject: Day 3 Opera works! Re: The New Macromedia Website Except for the Download page that tells Opera users to "Please Use a Supported Browser". Baby steps, I guess. Hopefully they'll get that working at some point soon. The home page is working great. So, as a developer who's doing some remoting, some RIAs (regardless of how *that* thread pans out), I'm intensly curious: What *exactly* was the problem, and will it effect me, as I build RIAs? Willy >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 03/07/03 05:18AM >>> Ahh good I am quite happy now that it was finally fixed so I can see the site. That song on the front page is nice for all of 2 seconds and then it burns into your skull lol. But looks like its not quite as laggy as it was in ie other 2 days. Kudos MM for at least letting those people who like a good browser :) (Opera) to use your site. - Original Message - From: "Sean A Corfield" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 4:31 AM Subject: Re: The New Macromedia Website On Thursday, Mar 6, 2003, at 14:08 US/Pacific, Adrocknaphobia Jones wrote: > For the last few years I've been telling upper management that I can > cut > costs, raise quality, and employ less developers. Cold Fusion is the > solution for us. Am I supposed to go to them and say, I need 3 times > the > budget per project and quadruple my department size I'm not sure why you think you need to do this? No one is forcing you to abandon CF nor forcing you to use Flash - you can continue to sell your "CF is cheap" position and continue building great sites, quickly. CF is great for that. > But last month I > noticed a large part of this community actively learning .NET. I'd hope large parts of this community would be constantly learning about technology. That's what makes everyone a better programmer. That's why people take courses, for example. > My underlying issue is that Macromedia is very fickle. I can't tell you > where they are going to be in a year. Which mean I don't know where I, > a > MM developer will be in a year either. Well, I don't think anyone can realistically argue the new site hasn't been fully sign-posted. Anyone who is surprised by our RIA deployment has, frankly, been living under a stone :) And it is purely evolution. It's CF on the back end, several of the apps are pure CF. Nothing shocking there. We have just four RIAs on the new site - there are five pure CF applications. People have been using Flash UIs on CF apps for quite some time, certainly prior to the MX launches. Macromedia has been roundly criticized for not using our own technology and for being a few releases behind the leading edge. Now we're up to date. You can't really criticize us for pushing the envelope... Sean A Corfield -- Director, Architecture Web Technology Group -- Macromedia, Inc. tel: (415) 252-2287 -- cell: (415) 717-8473 aim/iChat: seancorfield -- http://www.macromedia.com An Architect's View -- http://www.macromedia.com/go/arch_blog Announcing Macromedia DevNet Subscriptions Maximize your power with our new premium software subscription Find out more: http://www.macromedia.com/go/devnetsubs ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for dependable ColdFusion Hosting. Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
Day 3 Opera works! Re: The New Macromedia Website
Except for the Download page that tells Opera users to "Please Use a Supported Browser". Baby steps, I guess. Hopefully they'll get that working at some point soon. The home page is working great. So, as a developer who's doing some remoting, some RIAs (regardless of how *that* thread pans out), I'm intensly curious: What *exactly* was the problem, and will it effect me, as I build RIAs? Willy >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 03/07/03 05:18AM >>> Ahh good I am quite happy now that it was finally fixed so I can see the site. That song on the front page is nice for all of 2 seconds and then it burns into your skull lol. But looks like its not quite as laggy as it was in ie other 2 days. Kudos MM for at least letting those people who like a good browser :) (Opera) to use your site. - Original Message - From: "Sean A Corfield" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 4:31 AM Subject: Re: The New Macromedia Website On Thursday, Mar 6, 2003, at 14:08 US/Pacific, Adrocknaphobia Jones wrote: > For the last few years I've been telling upper management that I can > cut > costs, raise quality, and employ less developers. Cold Fusion is the > solution for us. Am I supposed to go to them and say, I need 3 times > the > budget per project and quadruple my department size I'm not sure why you think you need to do this? No one is forcing you to abandon CF nor forcing you to use Flash - you can continue to sell your "CF is cheap" position and continue building great sites, quickly. CF is great for that. > But last month I > noticed a large part of this community actively learning .NET. I'd hope large parts of this community would be constantly learning about technology. That's what makes everyone a better programmer. That's why people take courses, for example. > My underlying issue is that Macromedia is very fickle. I can't tell you > where they are going to be in a year. Which mean I don't know where I, > a > MM developer will be in a year either. Well, I don't think anyone can realistically argue the new site hasn't been fully sign-posted. Anyone who is surprised by our RIA deployment has, frankly, been living under a stone :) And it is purely evolution. It's CF on the back end, several of the apps are pure CF. Nothing shocking there. We have just four RIAs on the new site - there are five pure CF applications. People have been using Flash UIs on CF apps for quite some time, certainly prior to the MX launches. Macromedia has been roundly criticized for not using our own technology and for being a few releases behind the leading edge. Now we're up to date. You can't really criticize us for pushing the envelope... Sean A Corfield -- Director, Architecture Web Technology Group -- Macromedia, Inc. tel: (415) 252-2287 -- cell: (415) 717-8473 aim/iChat: seancorfield -- http://www.macromedia.com An Architect's View -- http://www.macromedia.com/go/arch_blog Announcing Macromedia DevNet Subscriptions Maximize your power with our new premium software subscription Find out more: http://www.macromedia.com/go/devnetsubs ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
RE: The New Macromedia Website
> However, to put things bluntly, HTML sucks. It sucks really bad. It's the > worst thing to happen to application interfaces in the short history of > computing, next to the QWERTY keyboard. The success of HTML interfaces has > been in spite of this awful step backwards in interface design, > not because > of it. HTML doesn't suck. It's a beautifully simple means of presenting textual information. And with CSS, the potential is there for it to be presented just as elegantly as any print-based layout. However, HTML wasn't designed to function as an application user interface. Which then gets to everything else you said. -Kevin ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
Day 3 Opera works! Re: The New Macromedia Website
Ahh good I am quite happy now that it was finally fixed so I can see the site. That song on the front page is nice for all of 2 seconds and then it burns into your skull lol. But looks like its not quite as laggy as it was in ie other 2 days. Kudos MM for at least letting those people who like a good browser :) (Opera) to use your site. - Original Message - From: "Sean A Corfield" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 4:31 AM Subject: Re: The New Macromedia Website On Thursday, Mar 6, 2003, at 14:08 US/Pacific, Adrocknaphobia Jones wrote: > For the last few years I've been telling upper management that I can > cut > costs, raise quality, and employ less developers. Cold Fusion is the > solution for us. Am I supposed to go to them and say, I need 3 times > the > budget per project and quadruple my department size I'm not sure why you think you need to do this? No one is forcing you to abandon CF nor forcing you to use Flash - you can continue to sell your "CF is cheap" position and continue building great sites, quickly. CF is great for that. > But last month I > noticed a large part of this community actively learning .NET. I'd hope large parts of this community would be constantly learning about technology. That's what makes everyone a better programmer. That's why people take courses, for example. > My underlying issue is that Macromedia is very fickle. I can't tell you > where they are going to be in a year. Which mean I don't know where I, > a > MM developer will be in a year either. Well, I don't think anyone can realistically argue the new site hasn't been fully sign-posted. Anyone who is surprised by our RIA deployment has, frankly, been living under a stone :) And it is purely evolution. It's CF on the back end, several of the apps are pure CF. Nothing shocking there. We have just four RIAs on the new site - there are five pure CF applications. People have been using Flash UIs on CF apps for quite some time, certainly prior to the MX launches. Macromedia has been roundly criticized for not using our own technology and for being a few releases behind the leading edge. Now we're up to date. You can't really criticize us for pushing the envelope... Sean A Corfield -- Director, Architecture Web Technology Group -- Macromedia, Inc. tel: (415) 252-2287 -- cell: (415) 717-8473 aim/iChat: seancorfield -- http://www.macromedia.com An Architect's View -- http://www.macromedia.com/go/arch_blog Announcing Macromedia DevNet Subscriptions Maximize your power with our new premium software subscription Find out more: http://www.macromedia.com/go/devnetsubs ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
Re: The New Macromedia Website
On Friday, Mar 7, 2003, at 00:23 US/Pacific, Jim Davis wrote: > Flash may have achieved market dominance via pure market forces, but > HTML, HTTP, CSS, SOAP, and XML have achieved market dominance via the > work of the W3C. Niether force can be discounted or marginalized. Hmm, as someone who spent eight years heavily involved in standards (ISO C, ISO C++ and a futile attempt to get Sun to play ball with Java), I would beg to differ... Standards bodies themselves do not drive acceptance. That's a rosy, optimistic view of the world. Standards exist to "aid commerce" and it's purely commerce that drives adoption. If a standard makes it easier to do business, companies adopt it. If a standard is mandated - by law - then companies adopt it. Otherwise, a standard *is* an academic exercise. Sean A Corfield -- http://www.corfield.org/blog/ "If you're not annoying somebody, you're not really alive." -- Margaret Atwood ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
Re: The New Macromedia Website
On Thursday, Mar 6, 2003, at 13:21 US/Pacific, Adrocknaphobia Jones wrote: > Yes CF is still the fastest. Up to about 6 months ago should be the > primary goal of web any application developer, according to MM. I'll agree with the "CF is still the fastest [language to develop HTML web apps]" comment but I'm not entirely sure where you get the "primary goal" stuff from. > They told us to shrink our web development teams, develop > on CF, and web applications will be done cheaper and faster. Can you point me to the article where Macromedia said that? > Basically, Macromedia taught me to oppose the notion of > RIA for these reasons. Now they want me to change my mind. Can you point me to the articles where Macromedia was teaching you this? > As I said, it's a failure to me. If I launched a large corporate site > that was this unresponsive, neglected the _large_ majority of users > without broadband, and didn't display properly across browsers... Macromedia's users *are* mostly on broadband - the large majority - and the site displays just fine on the "large majority" of our users' browsers. I suspect that many people who make this 'broadband' comment haven't actually surfed the 'net on a modem for a while... we did extensive tests and it actually performs comparatively well over a modem, when you compare it to other sites over a modem. And for 99.9-some-odd percent of our users, it displays just fine. That's not to say we shouldn't improve it - we will - nor that we don't care about the minority cases - we do. I'm just trying to put your criticisms in perspective. Sean A Corfield -- Director, Architecture Web Technology Group -- Macromedia, Inc. tel: (415) 252-2287 -- cell: (415) 717-8473 aim/iChat: seancorfield -- http://www.macromedia.com An Architect's View -- http://www.macromedia.com/go/arch_blog Announcing Macromedia DevNet Subscriptions Maximize your power with our new premium software subscription Find out more: http://www.macromedia.com/go/devnetsubs ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
RE: The New Macromedia Website
> Joe, *what* have you been smoking? > > HTML has gotten the web where it is because it is the only > game in town. > > And standards??? W3C? There is only one thing that will drive > market acceptance and that is market dominance; not a > committee of any sort. Ever. Macromedia has gotten > themselves installed on everybody's browser. Because of > that, they are the standard. Because they've also got the > mindshare at this point, they'll keep the lead. > > Unless of course they screw up somehow. > > And barring a Microsoft version of Flash (lets call it Flush) > getting installed on every desktop as part of the next > version of Windows. > > But either way, the process will be driven by market > dynamics... Not a cabal of academics. That's not fair and I think that you may know it. These "academics" are not sitting in an ivory tower making proclomations: the W3C members are, for the most part, representatives from those companies and organizations that drive web technology. A list of current members (including Macromedia) is here: http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Member/List Forgetting HTML, how many products are currently using XML? XML is a W3C standard. How about HTTP? That's a W3C standard as well. I agree that market factors can and do drive technology adoption, but a basic foundation must be in place first - and the W3C has given, and continues to give, us that foundation. It's not always on target (for example neither PNG or SMIL have particularly taken off) but what is? Flash may have achieved market dominance via pure market forces, but HTML, HTTP, CSS, SOAP, and XML have achieved market dominance via the work of the W3C. Niether force can be discounted or marginalized. The W3C is also, I believe, the only organization that can bring about the promises of the Semantic Web, common Ontologies and many other foundational technologies. Jim Davis ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in ColdFusion and related topics. http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
RE: The New Macromedia Website
Joe, *what* have you been smoking? HTML has gotten the web where it is because it is the only game in town. And standards??? W3C? There is only one thing that will drive market acceptance and that is market dominance; not a committee of any sort. Ever. Macromedia has gotten themselves installed on everybody's browser. Because of that, they are the standard. Because they've also got the mindshare at this point, they'll keep the lead. Unless of course they screw up somehow. And barring a Microsoft version of Flash (lets call it Flush) getting installed on every desktop as part of the next version of Windows. But either way, the process will be driven by market dynamics... Not a cabal of academics. Matt Robertson [EMAIL PROTECTED] MSB Designs, Inc. http://mysecretbase.com - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Site Design and ColdFusion Developer Tools ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
RE: The New Macromedia Website
> However, to put things bluntly, HTML sucks. Html might suck.. but it has driven internet..to where it is today. CFMX was re-written in Java as J2EE application, giving developers the leverage to implement scalable applications... and be productive(ROI). MM did a really good job...but released too soon. As for Flash and RIA.. its just another hype... If anything is going to replace.. html...that will probably be an open source technique..approved my W3C etc.. and when all browser vendors agree to implement the alternative(RIA) to "html"... that might be reality... until then.. "HTML" will rock.. JUST FACT! :) Joe Eugene > -Original Message- > From: Dave Watts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 7:29 PM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: RE: The New Macromedia Website > > > > Jaye I think we're starting to argue semantics and not > > the facts. I agree with the trip methodology, but when > > I got in the car, macromedia told me the destination > > was rapid development and lower costs. The new altered > > path is u-turn, because now we are heading towards longer > > development and higher costs. > > If you don't mind me torturing your analogy a bit, Macromedia just sells > cars. You're the driver. > > > As a capitalist you are assuming that if you invest more, > > you will get a higher return. Even though there isn't > > much evidence to prove this. If amazon.com decided to go > > into an RIA, they would be negating the millions the spent > > to build their existing site, not too mention spending > > three times their original investment. Just because it's > > in flash, how is it going to sell more books? The fact > > that RIA means higher quality is still unproven. MM can > > give you the Starbucks lecture about how people will pay > > for 'experience', which I think holds true in brick and > > mortar. I think it's a pipe dream in the world of the web. > > If Barnes and Noble has a better price on Harry Potter, > > people will buy it there, regardless of the online buying > > 'experience'. > > I agree with you about the uselessness of this whole "experience" > metaphor. > I also agree that it would probably be a bad more for Amazon to > switch to a > Flash interface right now - they probably wouldn't sell books. I > think that > ecommerce sites will probably be the last to switch over to a > "rich client" > interface, because ecommerce sites depend on simplicity so much - things > just have to work exactly right all the time, or they lose a sale. > > However, to put things bluntly, HTML sucks. It sucks really bad. It's the > worst thing to happen to application interfaces in the short history of > computing, next to the QWERTY keyboard. The success of HTML interfaces has > been in spite of this awful step backwards in interface design, > not because > of it. Web applications are used everywhere nowadays, in place of the > typical client-server applications of ten years ago, not because their > interfaces are better - far from it - but because they're cheaper > and easier > to develop and deploy. > > Macromedia, like Sun and Microsoft before it, is aiming for a > natural goal - > the marriage of the deployment advantages of Web applications with the > usability and functionality advantages of "native" desktop and > client-server > applications. Sun's attempt, of course, was client-side Java. I remember > well attending tradeshows (in the late '90s, I think) in which everyone > proclaimed that HTML was dead, and that next year everyone would be using > client-side Java. Well, you know how that worked out. Microsoft's > foray into > this was ActiveX, which didn't work out very well either. They > both had some > common problems - deployment and platform limitations, and complexity, for > example. But just because they both failed doesn't mean that their common > goal isn't a worthy one, at least for some application interfaces. > > Macromedia's answer to the problem of the suckiness of HTML is > Flash, and it > has been for some time. Flash has some natural advantages over Java and > ActiveX which needn't be elaborated here. > > > For the last few years I've been telling upper management > > that I can cut costs, raise quality, and employ less > > developers. Cold Fusion is the solution for us. Am I > > supposed to go to them and say, I need 3 times the > > budget per project and quadruple my department size > > (4x my yearly operating costs) I have no evidence that > > this will bring us any return
Re: The New Macromedia Website
Hallelujah and Amenthe all knowing and very succinct Mr. Watts has spoken the rational truth once again!! Thanks Dave ;-) Bryan Stevenson B.Comm. VP & Director of E-Commerce Development Electric Edge Systems Group Inc. t. 250.920.8830 e. [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Macromedia Associate Partner www.macromedia.com - Vancouver Island ColdFusion Users Group Founder & Director www.cfug-vancouverisland.com - Original Message - From: "Dave Watts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 4:28 PM Subject: RE: The New Macromedia Website > > Jaye I think we're starting to argue semantics and not > > the facts. I agree with the trip methodology, but when > > I got in the car, macromedia told me the destination > > was rapid development and lower costs. The new altered > > path is u-turn, because now we are heading towards longer > > development and higher costs. > > If you don't mind me torturing your analogy a bit, Macromedia just sells > cars. You're the driver. > > > As a capitalist you are assuming that if you invest more, > > you will get a higher return. Even though there isn't > > much evidence to prove this. If amazon.com decided to go > > into an RIA, they would be negating the millions the spent > > to build their existing site, not too mention spending > > three times their original investment. Just because it's > > in flash, how is it going to sell more books? The fact > > that RIA means higher quality is still unproven. MM can > > give you the Starbucks lecture about how people will pay > > for 'experience', which I think holds true in brick and > > mortar. I think it's a pipe dream in the world of the web. > > If Barnes and Noble has a better price on Harry Potter, > > people will buy it there, regardless of the online buying > > 'experience'. > > I agree with you about the uselessness of this whole "experience" metaphor. > I also agree that it would probably be a bad more for Amazon to switch to a > Flash interface right now - they probably wouldn't sell books. I think that > ecommerce sites will probably be the last to switch over to a "rich client" > interface, because ecommerce sites depend on simplicity so much - things > just have to work exactly right all the time, or they lose a sale. > > However, to put things bluntly, HTML sucks. It sucks really bad. It's the > worst thing to happen to application interfaces in the short history of > computing, next to the QWERTY keyboard. The success of HTML interfaces has > been in spite of this awful step backwards in interface design, not because > of it. Web applications are used everywhere nowadays, in place of the > typical client-server applications of ten years ago, not because their > interfaces are better - far from it - but because they're cheaper and easier > to develop and deploy. > > Macromedia, like Sun and Microsoft before it, is aiming for a natural goal - > the marriage of the deployment advantages of Web applications with the > usability and functionality advantages of "native" desktop and client-server > applications. Sun's attempt, of course, was client-side Java. I remember > well attending tradeshows (in the late '90s, I think) in which everyone > proclaimed that HTML was dead, and that next year everyone would be using > client-side Java. Well, you know how that worked out. Microsoft's foray into > this was ActiveX, which didn't work out very well either. They both had some > common problems - deployment and platform limitations, and complexity, for > example. But just because they both failed doesn't mean that their common > goal isn't a worthy one, at least for some application interfaces. > > Macromedia's answer to the problem of the suckiness of HTML is Flash, and it > has been for some time. Flash has some natural advantages over Java and > ActiveX which needn't be elaborated here. > > > For the last few years I've been telling upper management > > that I can cut costs, raise quality, and employ less > > developers. Cold Fusion is the solution for us. Am I > > supposed to go to them and say, I need 3 times the > > budget per project and quadruple my department size > > (4x my yearly operating costs) I have no evidence that > > this will bring us any return on our investment or will > > our application be higher quality. They will in fact be > > slower to load though, and probably won't be accessible > &
RE: The New Macromedia Website
> Jaye I think we're starting to argue semantics and not > the facts. I agree with the trip methodology, but when > I got in the car, macromedia told me the destination > was rapid development and lower costs. The new altered > path is u-turn, because now we are heading towards longer > development and higher costs. If you don't mind me torturing your analogy a bit, Macromedia just sells cars. You're the driver. > As a capitalist you are assuming that if you invest more, > you will get a higher return. Even though there isn't > much evidence to prove this. If amazon.com decided to go > into an RIA, they would be negating the millions the spent > to build their existing site, not too mention spending > three times their original investment. Just because it's > in flash, how is it going to sell more books? The fact > that RIA means higher quality is still unproven. MM can > give you the Starbucks lecture about how people will pay > for 'experience', which I think holds true in brick and > mortar. I think it's a pipe dream in the world of the web. > If Barnes and Noble has a better price on Harry Potter, > people will buy it there, regardless of the online buying > 'experience'. I agree with you about the uselessness of this whole "experience" metaphor. I also agree that it would probably be a bad more for Amazon to switch to a Flash interface right now - they probably wouldn't sell books. I think that ecommerce sites will probably be the last to switch over to a "rich client" interface, because ecommerce sites depend on simplicity so much - things just have to work exactly right all the time, or they lose a sale. However, to put things bluntly, HTML sucks. It sucks really bad. It's the worst thing to happen to application interfaces in the short history of computing, next to the QWERTY keyboard. The success of HTML interfaces has been in spite of this awful step backwards in interface design, not because of it. Web applications are used everywhere nowadays, in place of the typical client-server applications of ten years ago, not because their interfaces are better - far from it - but because they're cheaper and easier to develop and deploy. Macromedia, like Sun and Microsoft before it, is aiming for a natural goal - the marriage of the deployment advantages of Web applications with the usability and functionality advantages of "native" desktop and client-server applications. Sun's attempt, of course, was client-side Java. I remember well attending tradeshows (in the late '90s, I think) in which everyone proclaimed that HTML was dead, and that next year everyone would be using client-side Java. Well, you know how that worked out. Microsoft's foray into this was ActiveX, which didn't work out very well either. They both had some common problems - deployment and platform limitations, and complexity, for example. But just because they both failed doesn't mean that their common goal isn't a worthy one, at least for some application interfaces. Macromedia's answer to the problem of the suckiness of HTML is Flash, and it has been for some time. Flash has some natural advantages over Java and ActiveX which needn't be elaborated here. > For the last few years I've been telling upper management > that I can cut costs, raise quality, and employ less > developers. Cold Fusion is the solution for us. Am I > supposed to go to them and say, I need 3 times the > budget per project and quadruple my department size > (4x my yearly operating costs) I have no evidence that > this will bring us any return on our investment or will > our application be higher quality. They will in fact be > slower to load though, and probably won't be accessible > to everyone. Oh yeah, please disregard everything I've > told you in the past few years, about saving money and > faster development. I've changed my mind. (Seriously, > if I didn't write this, I'd think it was from a Dilbert > comic) If you don't need the functionality of rich client interfaces now, or don't think they're worth the cost now, why would you bother changing your development approach? There's nothing wrong with doing what you're doing. As time passes, it will continue to become easier and cheaper to build rich client interfaces, and at some point, it'll be easy enough and cheap enough to be worth your time. Right now, I'll be the first to agree that rich client interfaces aren't appropriate for every project - they're just another option to consider. > A year is not enough time to completely contrast a > philosophy. Look, I'm just trying to shed light on this > shock you are attributing to 'new technology'. I'm not > making these facts up; I'm trying to logically explain > them. In August of last year anyone talking about > emerging MS technology on this list would get flamed > and lambasted. I can't tell you how many times I got > the M$ evil empire lecture. But last month I noticed > a large part of this community actively le
RE: The New Macromedia Website
At 05:08 PM 3/6/2003 -0500, Adrocknaphobia Jones wrote: >My underlying issue is that Macromedia is very fickle. I can't tell you >where they are going to be in a year. Which mean I don't know where I, a >MM developer will be in a year either. Then don't upgrade? Keep the current version you have and remain a happy camper? Don't do any RIA development. RIA is nothing more than MM trying to set a trend. You can either jump on the trend bandwagon or you can look for another trend. Currently, where I work ... we're developing our first RIA website for a lawyer firm. Basically the whole public side is going to be done in flash. We're also offering a low bandwidth side, not because we have too, but because we realize that not everyone wants to jump on the flash bandwagon and I showed my bosses that it is entirely possible to build both the static and flash site at the same time using the same CFCs. We have one flash developer in-house that has never done remoting before in his life and ... right now, he's making it look all too easy. He's enjoying it, it's something new for him. So far it has NOT increased ANY additional time or money necessary for us to complete this website. It should be launched by the end of April and everything is right on schedule as it stands. It will be using CFMX for the backend/admin and Flash MX/Remoting/CFMX for the front end. So, it's a choice... either your clients want it or they won't. Either you will do it or you won't. Just one man's opinion, ~Todd -- Todd Rafferty ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - http://www.web-rat.com/ Team Macromedia Volunteer for ColdFusion http://www.macromedia.com/support/forums/team_macromedia/ http://www.devmx.com/ -- ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
RE: The New Macromedia Website
Sorry Adam, not to be contrary for the sake of it but I just don't read anywhere near as much into this. I see it as a redesign effort geared to show off their products to their developer market. Only. On the design philosophy side, I can't see how this has any bearing on whether or not you can develop on a small scale with CF. I'll bet that when I finally install my copy of Flash MX I'll stink at it just as bad as I do on design in general. I need a team, personally :) --- Matt Robertson, [EMAIL PROTECTED] MSB Designs, Inc. http://mysecretbase.com --- -- Original Message -- From: "Adrocknaphobia Jones" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:21:52 -0500 >Yes CF is still the fastest. Up to about 6 months ago should be the >primary goal of web any application developer, according to MM. They >stressed how cost effective it is to speed up development and use less >programmers. They told us to shrink our web development teams, develop >on CF, and web applications will be done cheaper and faster. Cost >effective. The boss will be happy. Yaddy yadda yadda. Call me a fool, >but I bought into it, and I still believe it. > >The philosophy of the company has done an about face. Now it's about >investing huge budgets & large teams. This contrast couldn't really be >more extreme. Basically, Macromedia taught me to oppose the notion of >RIA for these reasons. Now they want me to change my mind. It just seems >like ill timing to get us to spend more when the economy is in a slump. >Now more than ever is it important to cut the fat and not be as frugal >as we were in the late 90s. > >I'm speaking from a few years of meeting a lot of developers and seeing >how companies have adopted Cold Fusion. The large majority of companies >I've seen using CF have development teams under 5 people. Additionally >it's rare that an entire department is working one sole application. So >most teams are very small, if not lone. > >As I said, it's a failure to me. If I launched a large corporate site >that was this unresponsive, neglected the _large_ majority of users >without broadband, and didn't display properly across browsers... it's a >failure. But I'm one of those people who like to beta test _before_ >making it live. I think the 'beta' label is just a reaction to the >negative feedback. > >You are right... it is just a website. But it's a website for a company >that claims to be the end all resource for building websites, so of >course the bar is much higher than say >http://www.realultimatepower.net/. I'm also not talking about the >website, I'm talking about MM, RIA's and the future of the web. > >Adam Wayne Lehman >Web Systems Developer >Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health >Distance Education Division > > >-Original Message- >From: Chris Kief [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 3:12 PM >To: CF-Talk >Subject: RE: The New Macromedia Website > >>You made some great points, but I'd like to elaborate on the culture >>shock. This isn't culture shock for new technology, as web developers, >>the only technology that can give us culture shock, is _old_ >technology, >>or the lack of change. The shock is the complete turn of stance by MM. >> >>Macromedia has marketed Cold Fusion as the fastest and easiest way to >>create dynamic web based applications. That's been the core of CF with >>the philosophy of getting applications out the door fast, at a very low >>cost. > >How has this really changed though?? CF is *still* the fastest way to >get >web apps out the door. > > >>What's happens now, is that MM is saying the _complete_ opposite. They >>are contradicting everything they have said, which quite frankly breeds >>the mistrust I see popping up rapidly in the last few months. > >I don't agree with this. I don't hear MM replacing one statement with >another. Rather, the RIA initiative is an *additional* statement. > > >>In my research an RIA as defined by MM will cost 3-4 times more than a >>common cold fusion application. Additionally it will take 2-3 times >>longer in development. I believe it was Kevin Towes who said at devCon >>that a successful RIA needs a team of at least 12 people, a drastic >>contrast to the lone CF developer ideology MM has endorsed in selling >>points. > >If a prerequisite to all software development was the ability to produce >said software with one developer, we w
Re: The New Macromedia Website
see below Bryan Stevenson B.Comm. VP & Director of E-Commerce Development Electric Edge Systems Group Inc. t. 250.920.8830 e. [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Macromedia Associate Partner www.macromedia.com - Vancouver Island ColdFusion Users Group Founder & Director www.cfug-vancouverisland.com - Original Message - From: "Adrocknaphobia Jones" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 2:08 PM Subject: RE: The New Macromedia Website > Jaye I think we're starting to argue semantics and not the facts. I > agree with the trip methodology, but when I got in the car, macromedia > told me the destination was rapid development and lower costs. The new > altered path is u-turn, because now we are heading towards longer > development and higher costs. Is someone holding a gun to your head saying you have to build RIAs?? You can still use CFMX to rapidly build web applications...this has not changed. New technology comes out all the time...embrace it or don't...your choiceI know I will (and I don't need more developers to do it...that's BS IMHO) > > By all means, I am not arguing that Allaire didn't get us to that > destination. Cold Fusion delivered what it promised. This is why I am a > firm believer in the rapid development philosophy. But now that we've > gotten there, why are we turning around and going back to where we > started. If this is the sine curve of web development, then maybe I get > off here, and be ahead of the game when you guys turn around again. Listen...I knew zip about Flash MX...CFCs or CFMX...it took 2 days to build an app that I would consider to be on par with anything I can do in CF (been at CF since Jan. 98). Granted it wasn't super complex, but it's just not that hard to do. I picked it up quite quickly...took a bit to wrap my head around what wa up and ran with it. I love it.have you even used it yet? > > Jaye. I fully understand this technology. I know what's going on under > the hood. Yes there is some bandwidth saving aspect of flash apps, but > my end user doesn't care. If it takes 30 seconds to load the page, they > are gone. Yup and CF was a perfect tool when it came out...nothing new has occured and it has never spead up one ms in 6 versionsya see my point ;-) Give it a chance Please provide a link to a page that takes 30 seconds to load...I betcha it won't take that long heremy dabblings in RIAs have yet to result in anything slow. > > As a capitalist you are assuming that if you invest more, you will get a > higher return. Even though there isn't much evidence to prove this. If > amazon.com decided to go into an RIA, they would be negating the > millions the spent to build their existing site, not too mention > spending three times their original investment. Just because it's in > flash, how is it going to sell more books? The fact that RIA means > higher quality is still unproven. MM can give you the Starbucks lecture > about how people will pay for 'experience', which I think holds true in > brick and mortar. I think it's a pipe dream in the world of the web. If > Barnes and Noble has a better price on Harry Potter, people will buy it > there, regardless of the online buying 'experience'. You're rightthat would be stupid. Look to the future my friend...we're building a different animal here. HTML interfaces are crap compared to what can be built with Flash. The idea here is to build systems/tools that were previously not possible due to restrictions of HTML/cross-browser issues. > > If an RIA is going to cost me 3X as much, then I want to see 4X the > return or it wasn't worth it. I don't think changing the media of the > site will impact returns to that extent. Agian..it doesn't take 3x as much development time (as far as I have already experienced). Look at it this way...if it takes longer to do the coding you're still saving all that cross-browser time you would normally waste. > > For the last few years I've been telling upper management that I can cut > costs, raise quality, and employ less developers. Cold Fusion is the > solution for us. Am I supposed to go to them and say, I need 3 times the > budget per project and quadruple my department size (4x my yearly > operating costs) I have no evidence that this will bring us any return > on our investment or will our application be higher quality. They will > in fact be slower to load though, and probably won't be accessible to > everyone. Oh yeah, please disregard everything I've told you in the past > few years, about saving mon
RE: The New Macromedia Website
Jaye I think we're starting to argue semantics and not the facts. I agree with the trip methodology, but when I got in the car, macromedia told me the destination was rapid development and lower costs. The new altered path is u-turn, because now we are heading towards longer development and higher costs. By all means, I am not arguing that Allaire didn't get us to that destination. Cold Fusion delivered what it promised. This is why I am a firm believer in the rapid development philosophy. But now that we've gotten there, why are we turning around and going back to where we started. If this is the sine curve of web development, then maybe I get off here, and be ahead of the game when you guys turn around again. Jaye. I fully understand this technology. I know what's going on under the hood. Yes there is some bandwidth saving aspect of flash apps, but my end user doesn't care. If it takes 30 seconds to load the page, they are gone. As a capitalist you are assuming that if you invest more, you will get a higher return. Even though there isn't much evidence to prove this. If amazon.com decided to go into an RIA, they would be negating the millions the spent to build their existing site, not too mention spending three times their original investment. Just because it's in flash, how is it going to sell more books? The fact that RIA means higher quality is still unproven. MM can give you the Starbucks lecture about how people will pay for 'experience', which I think holds true in brick and mortar. I think it's a pipe dream in the world of the web. If Barnes and Noble has a better price on Harry Potter, people will buy it there, regardless of the online buying 'experience'. If an RIA is going to cost me 3X as much, then I want to see 4X the return or it wasn't worth it. I don't think changing the media of the site will impact returns to that extent. For the last few years I've been telling upper management that I can cut costs, raise quality, and employ less developers. Cold Fusion is the solution for us. Am I supposed to go to them and say, I need 3 times the budget per project and quadruple my department size (4x my yearly operating costs) I have no evidence that this will bring us any return on our investment or will our application be higher quality. They will in fact be slower to load though, and probably won't be accessible to everyone. Oh yeah, please disregard everything I've told you in the past few years, about saving money and faster development. I've changed my mind. (Seriously, if I didn't write this, I'd think it was from a Dilbert comic) A year is not enough time to completely contrast a philosophy. Look, I'm just trying to shed light on this shock you are attributing to 'new technology'. I'm not making these facts up; I'm trying to logically explain them. In August of last year anyone talking about emerging MS technology on this list would get flamed and lambasted. I can't tell you how many times I got the M$ evil empire lecture. But last month I noticed a large part of this community actively learning .NET. Which is very concerning considering CFMX hasn't even been out a year. My underlying issue is that Macromedia is very fickle. I can't tell you where they are going to be in a year. Which mean I don't know where I, a MM developer will be in a year either. Adam Wayne Lehman Web Systems Developer Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health Distance Education Division -Original Message----- From: Jaye Morris - jayeZERO.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 3:31 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: The New Macromedia Website Adam, What I am about to say is simply based on my experience and impression. Point by point I would reflect it back to you this way: 1. " The shock is the complete turn of stance by MM." Jaye's Response: Instead of saying complete turn of stance, I would say altered course. It's like being on a trip. You may start out moving towards one destination and yet in the process end up somewhere else. As you take your trip you acquire experience and new information (and technology) that simply leads you somewhere else. That's a good thing. We are making progress professionally. 2. Macromedia has marketed Cold Fusion as the fastest and easiest way to create dynamic web based applications. That's been the core of CF with the philosophy of getting applications out the door fast, at a very low cost. Jaye's Response: That is still true. Try a side by side comparison of a CF APP and a JSP or ASP app. You will laugh. 3. What's happens now, is that MM is saying the _complete_ opposite. They are contradicting everything they have said, which quite frankly breeds the mistrust I see popping up rapidly in the last few months. Jaye's Response: I have not ac
RE: The New Macromedia Website
You don't (AFAIK) Jaye -Original Message- From: Bud [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 3:51 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: The New Macromedia Website CFMX and sessions. Hi all. Every time I think I've turned the corner with MX, it bites me in the rear. OK Batman. Riddle me this: How in the world do you keep a session alive in CFMX when... A) Cookies are disabled and B) You move from one domain to the other ??? I have 3 situations with my shopping cart. 1) When a person has cookies disabled I add cfid and cftoken to the URL. This has worked fine to keep the session alive since 4.01. 2) When a person clicks checkout, I change the URL to the secure URL and add cfid and cftoken to the URL. Since it goes to a page under the same cfapplication tag with the same application name, the session stays alive, since 4.01. However, neither of these work in CFMX. HOW do I keep a session alive under these 2 conditions. It shouldn't be brain surgery. One thing I HAVE noticed is that sometimes there is a JSESSIONID cookie set. So I passed that value in the query string also, but to no avail. 3) Occasionally, on a redirect, I get that nasty, UGLY JSESSIONID URL parameter. I say UGLY, because it doesn't create a query string. It makes it like... www.domain.com/page.cfm;JSESSIONID=987908979808758 WHAT is that and HOW can I make it stay away? Thanks! -- Bud Schneehagen - Tropical Web Creations _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ ColdFusion Solutions / eCommerce Development [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.twcreations.com/ http://www.cf-ezcart.com/ 954.721.3452 ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
RE: The New Macromedia Website
Yes CF is still the fastest. Up to about 6 months ago should be the primary goal of web any application developer, according to MM. They stressed how cost effective it is to speed up development and use less programmers. They told us to shrink our web development teams, develop on CF, and web applications will be done cheaper and faster. Cost effective. The boss will be happy. Yaddy yadda yadda. Call me a fool, but I bought into it, and I still believe it. The philosophy of the company has done an about face. Now it's about investing huge budgets & large teams. This contrast couldn't really be more extreme. Basically, Macromedia taught me to oppose the notion of RIA for these reasons. Now they want me to change my mind. It just seems like ill timing to get us to spend more when the economy is in a slump. Now more than ever is it important to cut the fat and not be as frugal as we were in the late 90s. I'm speaking from a few years of meeting a lot of developers and seeing how companies have adopted Cold Fusion. The large majority of companies I've seen using CF have development teams under 5 people. Additionally it's rare that an entire department is working one sole application. So most teams are very small, if not lone. As I said, it's a failure to me. If I launched a large corporate site that was this unresponsive, neglected the _large_ majority of users without broadband, and didn't display properly across browsers... it's a failure. But I'm one of those people who like to beta test _before_ making it live. I think the 'beta' label is just a reaction to the negative feedback. You are right... it is just a website. But it's a website for a company that claims to be the end all resource for building websites, so of course the bar is much higher than say http://www.realultimatepower.net/. I'm also not talking about the website, I'm talking about MM, RIA's and the future of the web. Adam Wayne Lehman Web Systems Developer Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health Distance Education Division -Original Message- From: Chris Kief [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 3:12 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: The New Macromedia Website >You made some great points, but I'd like to elaborate on the culture >shock. This isn't culture shock for new technology, as web developers, >the only technology that can give us culture shock, is _old_ technology, >or the lack of change. The shock is the complete turn of stance by MM. > >Macromedia has marketed Cold Fusion as the fastest and easiest way to >create dynamic web based applications. That's been the core of CF with >the philosophy of getting applications out the door fast, at a very low >cost. How has this really changed though?? CF is *still* the fastest way to get web apps out the door. >What's happens now, is that MM is saying the _complete_ opposite. They >are contradicting everything they have said, which quite frankly breeds >the mistrust I see popping up rapidly in the last few months. I don't agree with this. I don't hear MM replacing one statement with another. Rather, the RIA initiative is an *additional* statement. >In my research an RIA as defined by MM will cost 3-4 times more than a >common cold fusion application. Additionally it will take 2-3 times >longer in development. I believe it was Kevin Towes who said at devCon >that a successful RIA needs a team of at least 12 people, a drastic >contrast to the lone CF developer ideology MM has endorsed in selling >points. If a prerequisite to all software development was the ability to produce said software with one developer, we would probably be in a sad state of affairs at the moment. That being said, you *can* still produce CF web apps with one developer. But if you would like to tackle larger, more complex projects such as RIAs, your associated development time and costs will have to change accordingly. If that wasn't the case, we'd all be building Amazon.com for $200. >Now, I totally agree that RIAs are the next generation. However, I think >Macromedia is getting to bold for its own good. As a web developer, if I >launched MM.com, I would feel it was a failure. Not only does this RIA >take more time, money and people to produce but now it has to be >'tweaked' just to get it to perform at a reasonable speed. Furthermore, >I think MM is still jumping the gun with broadband. I could never >implement something like this because I serve a worldwide audience. Only >a small percentage of people in the US have broadband, in countries like >Africa and Asia, the word broadband doesn't even exist. I think it's a little too early to label the site a failure. Come on, it's only been 1 day. Like any project, there will be bugs and other issu
RE: The New Macromedia Website
ACK!!! I hit reply to that subject to save time and tabbedonce too often and the subject went to the top of the e-mail. OOPS and sorry. I'll re-post with the correct subject. :) -- Bud Schneehagen - Tropical Web Creations _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ ColdFusion Solutions / eCommerce Development [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.twcreations.com/ http://www.cf-ezcart.com/ 954.721.3452 ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
RE: The New Macromedia Website
Not to be a jerk but you probably could if you passed the info to a shared object in FlashMX. Jaye -Original Message- From: Bud [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 3:51 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: The New Macromedia Website CFMX and sessions. Hi all. Every time I think I've turned the corner with MX, it bites me in the rear. OK Batman. Riddle me this: How in the world do you keep a session alive in CFMX when... A) Cookies are disabled and B) You move from one domain to the other ??? I have 3 situations with my shopping cart. 1) When a person has cookies disabled I add cfid and cftoken to the URL. This has worked fine to keep the session alive since 4.01. 2) When a person clicks checkout, I change the URL to the secure URL and add cfid and cftoken to the URL. Since it goes to a page under the same cfapplication tag with the same application name, the session stays alive, since 4.01. However, neither of these work in CFMX. HOW do I keep a session alive under these 2 conditions. It shouldn't be brain surgery. One thing I HAVE noticed is that sometimes there is a JSESSIONID cookie set. So I passed that value in the query string also, but to no avail. 3) Occasionally, on a redirect, I get that nasty, UGLY JSESSIONID URL parameter. I say UGLY, because it doesn't create a query string. It makes it like... www.domain.com/page.cfm;JSESSIONID=987908979808758 WHAT is that and HOW can I make it stay away? Thanks! -- Bud Schneehagen - Tropical Web Creations _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ ColdFusion Solutions / eCommerce Development [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.twcreations.com/ http://www.cf-ezcart.com/ 954.721.3452 ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
RE: The New Macromedia Website
> Macromedia has marketed Cold Fusion as the fastest and > easiest way to create dynamic web based applications. > That's been the core of CF with the philosophy of getting > applications out the door fast, at a very low cost. I don't think that's changed any. CF is still the fastest and easiest way to create web applications. Those applications may use HTML interfaces, or Flash interfaces, but CF is still the best thing for powering the server-side portion of the application. > What's happens now, is that MM is saying the _complete_ > opposite. They are contradicting everything they have said, > which quite frankly breeds the mistrust I see popping up > rapidly in the last few months. I don't get this at all. I don't ever recall anyone at MM saying "don't use CF any more". What they are saying is that they think that web applications with more functional Flash interfaces will be the wave of the future. But even if you don't drink the Flash koolaid, I don't see why you'd be upset about it one way or another. > In my research an RIA as defined by MM will cost 3-4 times > more than a common cold fusion application. Additionally > it will take 2-3 times longer in development. I believe > it was Kevin Towes who said at devCon that a successful > RIA needs a team of at least 12 people, a drastic contrast > to the lone CF developer ideology MM has endorsed in selling > points. I don't really think Macromedia ever endorsed any "lone CF developer ideology". If they did, it was largely BS then - most complex projects simply can't be accomplished by one person. I do agree with you that applications with Flash interfaces will cost more than ones with HTML interfaces. That shouldn't come as a surprise, and is certainly a valid consideration when determining what kind of interface to use in an application. But it's not the only consideration, and it never was. For example, we've been building DHTML interfaces for quite a long time, and guess what - they cost more than plain ol' HTML interfaces. Sometimes, the increase in usability and functionality is worth it, and other times it may not be. But in either case, you can still use CF to lower the overall development cost and minimize the complexity of your server-side code. > Now, I totally agree that RIAs are the next generation. > However, I think Macromedia is getting to bold for its > own good. As a web developer, if I launched MM.com, I > would feel it was a failure. Not only does this RIA > take more time, money and people to produce but now > it has to be 'tweaked' just to get it to perform at a > reasonable speed. I don't remember the Allaire site being any great shakes, though. I always thought they did a pretty poor job of showcasing their own technology. But, to me, that's not really a statement about how good the technology is, just about their implementation. In my opinion, too, the Macromedia site isn't really an application in any meaningful sense. It's just a site, with content - mostly advertising, really. No matter how good they are at developing their own site, they're simply not going to have the kind of specific focus that a typical web application might have. > Furthermore, I think MM is still jumping the gun with > broadband. I could never implement something like this > because I serve a worldwide audience. Only a small > percentage of people in the US have broadband, in > countries like Africa and Asia, the word broadband > doesn't even exist. That's a valid opinion, but I suspect they know their userbase better than we do. > Fact of the matter is that instead of slowly warming > the developer community to these ideas, MM has thrown > boiling water on them. This backlash is a predictable > outcome they should have seen coming. > > Unfortunately this is just another bullet in the list > of curveballs MM has thrown its developers. > > To be honest. I don't trust MM at all anymore, which is > very daunting being that I have only been listening to > them since they bought Allaire. To me, a lot of the backlash seen on this list strikes me as unwarranted and as overreaction. People here have freaked out over Dreamweaver, with no real reason in my opinion - you either like it and use it, or don't, since you can still buy and use Homesite+. People have freaked out over CFMX, even though it's been strikingly successful in my opinion considering it's really a 1.0 product, rewritten entirely in Java - and without a significant change like this, CF was likely to fail in its competition with enterprise app servers. But then, I remember when people freaked out over CF 4's horrific memory management problems, or CF 3's scalability problems with memory variables, and I think that things haven't changed much after all. As for whether you should trust Macromedia, or Allaire, or any other vendor, well, all I can say is "trust, but verify". Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ voice: (202) 797-54
RE: The New Macromedia Website
CFMX and sessions. Hi all. Every time I think I've turned the corner with MX, it bites me in the rear. OK Batman. Riddle me this: How in the world do you keep a session alive in CFMX when... A) Cookies are disabled and B) You move from one domain to the other ??? I have 3 situations with my shopping cart. 1) When a person has cookies disabled I add cfid and cftoken to the URL. This has worked fine to keep the session alive since 4.01. 2) When a person clicks checkout, I change the URL to the secure URL and add cfid and cftoken to the URL. Since it goes to a page under the same cfapplication tag with the same application name, the session stays alive, since 4.01. However, neither of these work in CFMX. HOW do I keep a session alive under these 2 conditions. It shouldn't be brain surgery. One thing I HAVE noticed is that sometimes there is a JSESSIONID cookie set. So I passed that value in the query string also, but to no avail. 3) Occasionally, on a redirect, I get that nasty, UGLY JSESSIONID URL parameter. I say UGLY, because it doesn't create a query string. It makes it like... www.domain.com/page.cfm;JSESSIONID=987908979808758 WHAT is that and HOW can I make it stay away? Thanks! -- Bud Schneehagen - Tropical Web Creations _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ ColdFusion Solutions / eCommerce Development [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.twcreations.com/ http://www.cf-ezcart.com/ 954.721.3452 ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
Re: The New Macromedia Website
- Original Message - From: "Chris Kief" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >What's happens now, is that MM is saying the _complete_ opposite. They > >are contradicting everything they have said, which quite frankly breeds > >the mistrust I see popping up rapidly in the last few months. > > I don't agree with this. I don't hear MM replacing one statement with > another. Rather, the RIA initiative is an *additional* statement. Correct. One thing to keep in mind is that the vast majority of the website is in HTML / ColdFusion, with just small elements of Flash being used on those pages. mike chambers [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
RE: The New Macromedia Website
Your reasons for doubting the legitimacy of RIA are understandable, but it seems to me there is a labor-intensive gap for RIA applications that may be answered soon and may make them far more practical to develop. Remember when Flash 5 came out and you could suddenly use form controls? Before then, you had to roll your own and they took a lot of time to build. Suddenly, with reusable components, life became a lot simpler. What is a form component without a form? Just a piece of a larger picture. You are stuck right now with having to build out your own classes to handle these things. IMHO, there is a need for a windowing component in Flash to make real applications simpler to develop. Something to group form components into a whole that can be used by developers to make real applications. Something OO that can be easily scripted and has well-defined methods and properties. In other words, I look to RIA as something that is being built out right now, and will be feasible for development shops in the near future. Right now, it is expensive as hell, but it won't be that way forever. M -Original Message- From: Joe Eugene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 11:50 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: The New Macromedia Website Very well said... Adam. I still do belive.. RIA is just another hype...just like applets, which didnt go anywhere..inpsite of the fact that applet techniques were Non-Proprietary. You might see some flashy marketing type implementations like Nike Golf/now MM.. but i dont think RIA will be of any value to scalable/high traffic(eg ebay,amazon etc) Web Applications. Joe ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
RE: The New Macromedia Website
s. Keep the Faith, -//- Jaye Morris - Multimedia Developer -//- [EMAIL PROTECTED] - www.navtrak.net -//- [EMAIL PROTECTED] - www.jayezero.com -Original Message- From: Adrocknaphobia Jones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 2:12 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: The New Macromedia Website Jaye, You made some great points, but I'd like to elaborate on the culture shock. This isn't culture shock for new technology, as web developers, the only technology that can give us culture shock, is _old_ technology, or the lack of change. The shock is the complete turn of stance by MM. Macromedia has marketed Cold Fusion as the fastest and easiest way to create dynamic web based applications. That's been the core of CF with the philosophy of getting applications out the door fast, at a very low cost. What's happens now, is that MM is saying the _complete_ opposite. They are contradicting everything they have said, which quite frankly breeds the mistrust I see popping up rapidly in the last few months. In my research an RIA as defined by MM will cost 3-4 times more than a common cold fusion application. Additionally it will take 2-3 times longer in development. I believe it was Kevin Towes who said at devCon that a successful RIA needs a team of at least 12 people, a drastic contrast to the lone CF developer ideology MM has endorsed in selling points. Now, I totally agree that RIAs are the next generation. However, I think Macromedia is getting to bold for its own good. As a web developer, if I launched MM.com, I would feel it was a failure. Not only does this RIA take more time, money and people to produce but now it has to be 'tweaked' just to get it to perform at a reasonable speed. Furthermore, I think MM is still jumping the gun with broadband. I could never implement something like this because I serve a worldwide audience. Only a small percentage of people in the US have broadband, in countries like Africa and Asia, the word broadband doesn't even exist. Fact of the matter is that instead of slowly warming the developer community to these ideas, MM has thrown boiling water on them. This backlash is a predictable outcome they should have seen coming. Unfortunately this is just another bullet in the list of curveballs MM has thrown its developers. To be honest. I don't trust MM at all anymore, which is very daunting being that I have only been listening to them since they bought Allaire. Adam Wayne Lehman Web Systems Developer Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health Distance Education Division -Original Message- From: Jaye Morris - jayeZERO.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 10:41 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: The New Macromedia Website Wow. Talk about culture shock. There has been quite a bit said today about the new (beta) version of the layout. I have checked out the site and it was well done. Personally I was impressed with some of the backend action going on. Pretty tight indeed. Try out the "Your account section". I assume they are using remoting on steroids.I am intrigued as hell at the entire gig and the richness of the environment. This is showing a great many possibilities, for all of us. Related to "the site seems slow (etc.)", this is a beta. Code gets tweaked, enhanced etc. All those people on the various soap boxes.. Have you not had to go back and tweak your own code, in order to make it faster and more responsive? Have you yourselves possibly had to work out some unintended glitches and gotcha's? Sometime I like to go back and study my code (and UI) and see how I could do it better. Tony Weeg, who is our lead developer many times will say "hey what about this." and in the end show me different (often better ways of doing something) in the end making me a better programmer. MM staff members are developers to. Instead of having such a strong knee jerk reaction, perhaps we should help them beta test this thing and offer "CONSTRUCTIVE DIRECTION". Even experts can learn new methods. They seem to put themselves out there, listen and where possible, integrate information from our massively strong. In closing I will leave you with this: 1. People have a tough time with change (if for not other reason than they might have to fix their favorites). BTW in psychology this is called a "paradigm shift" (e.g. learning to see things in a new way). 2. Macromedia put their money where their mouth is. Here's a realty check for you. How many times have you been to one of the elite prophets of flash (including the book writers) and there is no flash on their site? (gawd.. Now that is a true contradiction. Highly encourage something and then not use it or demonstrate it yourself (in terms of practical application use). What does that tell our client when we are out there promoting RIA?
RE: The New Macromedia Website
>You made some great points, but I'd like to elaborate on the culture >shock. This isn't culture shock for new technology, as web developers, >the only technology that can give us culture shock, is _old_ technology, >or the lack of change. The shock is the complete turn of stance by MM. > >Macromedia has marketed Cold Fusion as the fastest and easiest way to >create dynamic web based applications. That's been the core of CF with >the philosophy of getting applications out the door fast, at a very low >cost. How has this really changed though?? CF is *still* the fastest way to get web apps out the door. >What's happens now, is that MM is saying the _complete_ opposite. They >are contradicting everything they have said, which quite frankly breeds >the mistrust I see popping up rapidly in the last few months. I don't agree with this. I don't hear MM replacing one statement with another. Rather, the RIA initiative is an *additional* statement. >In my research an RIA as defined by MM will cost 3-4 times more than a >common cold fusion application. Additionally it will take 2-3 times >longer in development. I believe it was Kevin Towes who said at devCon >that a successful RIA needs a team of at least 12 people, a drastic >contrast to the lone CF developer ideology MM has endorsed in selling >points. If a prerequisite to all software development was the ability to produce said software with one developer, we would probably be in a sad state of affairs at the moment. That being said, you *can* still produce CF web apps with one developer. But if you would like to tackle larger, more complex projects such as RIAs, your associated development time and costs will have to change accordingly. If that wasn't the case, we'd all be building Amazon.com for $200. >Now, I totally agree that RIAs are the next generation. However, I think >Macromedia is getting to bold for its own good. As a web developer, if I >launched MM.com, I would feel it was a failure. Not only does this RIA >take more time, money and people to produce but now it has to be >'tweaked' just to get it to perform at a reasonable speed. Furthermore, >I think MM is still jumping the gun with broadband. I could never >implement something like this because I serve a worldwide audience. Only >a small percentage of people in the US have broadband, in countries like >Africa and Asia, the word broadband doesn't even exist. I think it's a little too early to label the site a failure. Come on, it's only been 1 day. Like any project, there will be bugs and other issues to iron out. But I'm glad to see MM taking this step and pushing the limits of what's possible on the web. It's only going to make my job easier in the future as they will find and address problems with the development and deployment of RIAs. As for the broadband issue, that is a strategic decision by MM based on, I would guess, massive amounts of data gathered from users of their site. Obviously they felt that the majority of their customer base could handle the requirements of the new website and moved ahead accordingly. >Fact of the matter is that instead of slowly warming the developer >community to these ideas, MM has thrown boiling water on them. This >backlash is a predictable outcome they should have seen coming. > >Unfortunately this is just another bullet in the list of curveballs MM >has thrown its developers. > >To be honest. I don't trust MM at all anymore, which is very daunting >being that I have only been listening to them since they bought Allaire. "boiling water"..."another bullet in the list of curveballs"...come on...please...it is *just* a website after all ;) chris ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
Re: The New Macromedia Website
Very well said... Adam. I still do belive.. RIA is just another hype...just like applets, which didnt go anywhere..inpsite of the fact that applet techniques were Non-Proprietary. You might see some flashy marketing type implementations like Nike Golf/now MM.. but i dont think RIA will be of any value to scalable/high traffic(eg ebay,amazon etc) Web Applications. Joe ---Original Message--- From: Adrocknaphobia Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: 03/06/03 02:12 PM To: CF-Talk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: The New Macromedia Website > > Jaye, You made some great points, but I'd like to elaborate on the culture shock. This isn't culture shock for new technology, as web developers, the only technology that can give us culture shock, is _old_ technology, or the lack of change. The shock is the complete turn of stance by MM. Macromedia has marketed Cold Fusion as the fastest and easiest way to create dynamic web based applications. That's been the core of CF with the philosophy of getting applications out the door fast, at a very low cost. What's happens now, is that MM is saying the _complete_ opposite. They are contradicting everything they have said, which quite frankly breeds the mistrust I see popping up rapidly in the last few months. In my research an RIA as defined by MM will cost 3-4 times more than a common cold fusion application. Additionally it will take 2-3 times longer in development. I believe it was Kevin Towes who said at devCon that a successful RIA needs a team of at least 12 people, a drastic contrast to the lone CF developer ideology MM has endorsed in selling points. Now, I totally agree that RIAs are the next generation. However, I think Macromedia is getting to bold for its own good. As a web developer, if I launched MM.com, I would feel it was a failure. Not only does this RIA take more time, money and people to produce but now it has to be 'tweaked' just to get it to perform at a reasonable speed. Furthermore, I think MM is still jumping the gun with broadband. I could never implement something like this because I serve a worldwide audience. Only a small percentage of people in the US have broadband, in countries like Africa and Asia, the word broadband doesn't even exist. Fact of the matter is that instead of slowly warming the developer community to these ideas, MM has thrown boiling water on them. This backlash is a predictable outcome they should have seen coming. Unfortunately this is just another bullet in the list of curveballs MM has thrown its developers. To be honest. I don't trust MM at all anymore, which is very daunting being that I have only been listening to them since they bought Allaire. Adam Wayne Lehman Web Systems Developer Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health Distance Education Division -Original Message- From: Jaye Morris - jayeZERO.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 10:41 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: The New Macromedia Website Wow. Talk about culture shock. There has been quite a bit said today about the new (beta) version of the layout. I have checked out the site and it was well done. Personally I was impressed with some of the backend action going on. Pretty tight indeed. Try out the "Your account section". I assume they are using remoting on steroids.I am intrigued as hell at the entire gig and the richness of the environment. This is showing a great many possibilities, for all of us. Related to "the site seems slow (etc.)", this is a beta. Code gets tweaked, enhanced etc. All those people on the various soap boxes.. Have you not had to go back and tweak your own code, in order to make it faster and more responsive? Have you yourselves possibly had to work out some unintended glitches and gotcha's? Sometime I like to go back and study my code (and UI) and see how I could do it better. Tony Weeg, who is our lead developer many times will say "hey what about this." and in the end show me different (often better ways of doing something) in the end making me a better programmer. MM staff members are developers to. Instead of having such a strong knee jerk reaction, perhaps we should help them beta test this thing and offer "CONSTRUCTIVE DIRECTION". Even experts can learn new methods. They seem to put themselves out there, listen and where possible, integrate information from our massively strong. In closing I will leave you with this: 1. People have a tough time with change (if for not other reason than they might have to fix their favorites). BTW in psychology this is called a "paradigm shift" (e.g. learning to see things in a new way). 2. Macromedia put their money where their mouth is. Here's a realty check for you. How many times have you been to one of the elite prophets of flash (including the book writers) and there is
RE: The New Macromedia Website
Jaye, You made some great points, but I'd like to elaborate on the culture shock. This isn't culture shock for new technology, as web developers, the only technology that can give us culture shock, is _old_ technology, or the lack of change. The shock is the complete turn of stance by MM. Macromedia has marketed Cold Fusion as the fastest and easiest way to create dynamic web based applications. That's been the core of CF with the philosophy of getting applications out the door fast, at a very low cost. What's happens now, is that MM is saying the _complete_ opposite. They are contradicting everything they have said, which quite frankly breeds the mistrust I see popping up rapidly in the last few months. In my research an RIA as defined by MM will cost 3-4 times more than a common cold fusion application. Additionally it will take 2-3 times longer in development. I believe it was Kevin Towes who said at devCon that a successful RIA needs a team of at least 12 people, a drastic contrast to the lone CF developer ideology MM has endorsed in selling points. Now, I totally agree that RIAs are the next generation. However, I think Macromedia is getting to bold for its own good. As a web developer, if I launched MM.com, I would feel it was a failure. Not only does this RIA take more time, money and people to produce but now it has to be 'tweaked' just to get it to perform at a reasonable speed. Furthermore, I think MM is still jumping the gun with broadband. I could never implement something like this because I serve a worldwide audience. Only a small percentage of people in the US have broadband, in countries like Africa and Asia, the word broadband doesn't even exist. Fact of the matter is that instead of slowly warming the developer community to these ideas, MM has thrown boiling water on them. This backlash is a predictable outcome they should have seen coming. Unfortunately this is just another bullet in the list of curveballs MM has thrown its developers. To be honest. I don't trust MM at all anymore, which is very daunting being that I have only been listening to them since they bought Allaire. Adam Wayne Lehman Web Systems Developer Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health Distance Education Division -Original Message- From: Jaye Morris - jayeZERO.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 10:41 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: The New Macromedia Website Wow. Talk about culture shock. There has been quite a bit said today about the new (beta) version of the layout. I have checked out the site and it was well done. Personally I was impressed with some of the backend action going on. Pretty tight indeed. Try out the "Your account section". I assume they are using remoting on steroids.I am intrigued as hell at the entire gig and the richness of the environment. This is showing a great many possibilities, for all of us. Related to "the site seems slow (etc.)", this is a beta. Code gets tweaked, enhanced etc. All those people on the various soap boxes.. Have you not had to go back and tweak your own code, in order to make it faster and more responsive? Have you yourselves possibly had to work out some unintended glitches and gotcha's? Sometime I like to go back and study my code (and UI) and see how I could do it better. Tony Weeg, who is our lead developer many times will say "hey what about this." and in the end show me different (often better ways of doing something) in the end making me a better programmer. MM staff members are developers to. Instead of having such a strong knee jerk reaction, perhaps we should help them beta test this thing and offer "CONSTRUCTIVE DIRECTION". Even experts can learn new methods. They seem to put themselves out there, listen and where possible, integrate information from our massively strong. In closing I will leave you with this: 1. People have a tough time with change (if for not other reason than they might have to fix their favorites). BTW in psychology this is called a "paradigm shift" (e.g. learning to see things in a new way). 2. Macromedia put their money where their mouth is. Here's a realty check for you. How many times have you been to one of the elite prophets of flash (including the book writers) and there is no flash on their site? (gawd.. Now that is a true contradiction. Highly encourage something and then not use it or demonstrate it yourself (in terms of practical application use). What does that tell our client when we are out there promoting RIA? 3. CFMX and FlashMX (combined with remoting) can carry this process to the next level. I encourage myself and you to be there (and I am sure you will). Peace, Love and Soul Train!! Good coding, my friends. -//- Jaye Morris - Multi
RE: The New Macromedia Website
-- Original Message -- From: "Jaye Morris - jayeZERO.com" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Instead of having such a strong knee jerk reaction, perhaps we >should help them beta test this thing and offer "CONSTRUCTIVE >DIRECTION". Even experts can learn new methods. They seem to put >themselves out there, listen and where possible, integrate information >from our massively strong. I have no problem with there being bugs in the system (You're always going to have bugs). If I have any problem, it's that this "beta" was put out as their production web site, apparently without doing a beta test with it (at least not a public beta test). As a counter-example, on at least two occasion, Amazon has sent e-mails out to customers asking them to test a beta site (such as the Apparel site). This was done before the final site went live. While I wouldn't hold Amazon up as the best site in the world, I do like the fact that they do public tests of the site design changes before replacing the original site. It appears Macromedia didn't do this (based on the fact that no one on this list or evolt.org apparently got an e-mail asking them to test it out), and I think it would have helped immensely. Scott Scott Brady http://www.scottbrady.net/ ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
Re: The New Macromedia Website
I must give kudos to MM for their new beta site. We developers all know that the most critical place to put your development is to place it in front of other developers, especially experienced ones. The work on the site is evidence of, as was previously said, MM put their money on the line, and is obviously taking web presentations to the next level. The applicability of this extent of RIA to all web sites remains to be seen. Another critical point I want to make is that not all developers are gurus in communication. This is why some of the posts appear to be negative when they can be read as constructive critique. Cutting to the chase, the bottom line is that all of us hope that the folks employed with MM that monitor this mail list, (and several others where this is being discussed) that all the criticism you are reading should be taken as constructive in nature. I doubt seriously that anyone posting comments on here intend to be derogatory. Many of us make our living with your software and tools, thus you will see that we want them to be as enhancing to us as much as possible. There are enough bad Flash designs, and it is time we saw good ones, which will encourage us to expand our own skillsets and renew our efforts to learn and use the technology as it was conceived to be used. We look forward to the tutorials that will walk the itinerant Flash developer through the development of your web site. We look forward to mention of the actual tools your developers used as each segment was developed. We want your help. = Douglas White group Manager mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.samcfug.org = ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for dependable ColdFusion Hosting. Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
