[cfaussie] Re: ot: db architecture question
Replication or create a read only account. - Original Message - From: "Scott Thornton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2006 4:26 PM Subject: [cfaussie] Re: ot: db architecture question Hi, Sounds like a post for http://thedailywtf.com/ BUT, Do you need the extra layer of abstraction so you are not running queries against a live server? You could set up some replication of the database.. I think I saw you mention a second SQL server. >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 06/07/2006 3:23:10 pm >>> hi all we've got a propriety system here that backends onto sql server. the system maintains all time entries and billing information for the firm - and in the firms view, this information is sacred and has about a million levels of security. I've been charged with making a web-visible reporting tool using the information in this system. we are not allowed to connect directly from CF to the sql database - there has to be a layer of abstraction between the web-visible server and the internal database. we've already done a version one, where we ran a seperate sql-server with linked views to the production sql-server. this has had many pitfalls, the main one being that you can't pass in parameters to a view - or link stored procs. basically we've had to make seperate views for each of the parameters that we wish to pass in (usually it's clientid, of which we only have about five at the moment) but it's a managability nightmare. so here's my question: how can i access the production db, either from the cf server or a separate db server, while still maintaining an abstracted level of security (and be able to pass in parameters)? There are about 3million records we're sifting through, so it's not practical to bring it into cf memory and filter from there. any ideas, for you advanced db guys? thanks grant --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "cfaussie" group. To post to this group, send email to cfaussie@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cfaussie -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[cfaussie] Re: ot: db architecture question
Hi, Sounds like a post for http://thedailywtf.com/ BUT, Do you need the extra layer of abstraction so you are not running queries against a live server? You could set up some replication of the database.. I think I saw you mention a second SQL server. >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 06/07/2006 3:23:10 pm >>> hi all we've got a propriety system here that backends onto sql server. the system maintains all time entries and billing information for the firm - and in the firms view, this information is sacred and has about a million levels of security. I've been charged with making a web-visible reporting tool using the information in this system. we are not allowed to connect directly from CF to the sql database - there has to be a layer of abstraction between the web-visible server and the internal database. we've already done a version one, where we ran a seperate sql-server with linked views to the production sql-server. this has had many pitfalls, the main one being that you can't pass in parameters to a view - or link stored procs. basically we've had to make seperate views for each of the parameters that we wish to pass in (usually it's clientid, of which we only have about five at the moment) but it's a managability nightmare. so here's my question: how can i access the production db, either from the cf server or a separate db server, while still maintaining an abstracted level of security (and be able to pass in parameters)? There are about 3million records we're sifting through, so it's not practical to bring it into cf memory and filter from there. any ideas, for you advanced db guys? thanks grant --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "cfaussie" group. To post to this group, send email to cfaussie@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cfaussie -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[cfaussie] Re: ot: db architecture question
Stored procedures are a good. They abstract SQL out of code to the point where they are behind an extra layer of security. You give them parameters and get recordsets back.Blair On 7/6/06, Dale Fraser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I don't get it.Just get the SQL admins to create you a read only account with access toonly the necessary DB's / Tables.Then just talk to it, there is no danger, as you can't write, no security as you can't access stuff you were not supposed to.PS: Who said you can't pass paramaters to a view.select *fromviewNamewhere recordId = 4recordId = 4 is a parameter passed to the view, is it not? RegardsDale Fraser-Original Message-From: cfaussie@googlegroups.com [mailto:cfaussie@googlegroups.com ] On BehalfOf grantSent: Thursday, 6 July 2006 15:23 PMTo: cfaussie@googlegroups.comSubject: [cfaussie] ot: db architecture questionhi all we've got a propriety system here that backends onto sql server. thesystem maintains all time entries and billing information for the firm- and in the firms view, this information is sacred and has about a million levels of security.I've been charged with making a web-visible reporting tool using theinformation in this system. we are not allowed to connect directlyfrom CF to the sql database - there has to be a layer of abstraction between the web-visible server and the internal database.we've already done a version one, where we ran a seperate sql-serverwith linked views to the production sql-server. this has had manypitfalls, the main one being that you can't pass in parameters to a view - or link stored procs. basically we've had to make seperateviews for each of the parameters that we wish to pass in (usually it'sclientid, of which we only have about five at the moment) but it's amanagability nightmare. so here's my question: how can i access the production db, either fromthe cf server or a separate db server, while still maintaining anabstracted level of security (and be able to pass in parameters)? There are about 3million records we're sifting through, so it's notpractical to bring it into cf memory and filter from there.any ideas, for you advanced db guys?thanksgrant --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "cfaussie" group. To post to this group, send email to cfaussie@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cfaussie -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[cfaussie] Re: ot: db architecture question
I don't get it. Just get the SQL admins to create you a read only account with access to only the necessary DB's / Tables. Then just talk to it, there is no danger, as you can't write, no security as you can't access stuff you were not supposed to. PS: Who said you can't pass paramaters to a view. select * fromviewName where recordId = 4 recordId = 4 is a parameter passed to the view, is it not? Regards Dale Fraser -Original Message- From: cfaussie@googlegroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of grant Sent: Thursday, 6 July 2006 15:23 PM To: cfaussie@googlegroups.com Subject: [cfaussie] ot: db architecture question hi all we've got a propriety system here that backends onto sql server. the system maintains all time entries and billing information for the firm - and in the firms view, this information is sacred and has about a million levels of security. I've been charged with making a web-visible reporting tool using the information in this system. we are not allowed to connect directly from CF to the sql database - there has to be a layer of abstraction between the web-visible server and the internal database. we've already done a version one, where we ran a seperate sql-server with linked views to the production sql-server. this has had many pitfalls, the main one being that you can't pass in parameters to a view - or link stored procs. basically we've had to make seperate views for each of the parameters that we wish to pass in (usually it's clientid, of which we only have about five at the moment) but it's a managability nightmare. so here's my question: how can i access the production db, either from the cf server or a separate db server, while still maintaining an abstracted level of security (and be able to pass in parameters)? There are about 3million records we're sifting through, so it's not practical to bring it into cf memory and filter from there. any ideas, for you advanced db guys? thanks grant --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "cfaussie" group. To post to this group, send email to cfaussie@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cfaussie -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[cfaussie] Re: ot: db architecture question
HI Grant, > you can't pass in parameters to a view Why not? (unless I'm missing something) I do this all the time... Sql View (called topSecret) SELECT * FROM TOP_SECRET_DB_TABLE -- other joins/unions etc. Cfquery SELECT * FROM topSecret WHERE clientId = 666 ORDER BY thisField Let me know if im not on the same page as you?!?! Cheers, Adam -Original Message- From: grant [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, 6 July 2006 3:23 PM To: cfaussie@googlegroups.com Subject: [cfaussie] ot: db architecture question hi all we've got a propriety system here that backends onto sql server. the system maintains all time entries and billing information for the firm - and in the firms view, this information is sacred and has about a million levels of security. I've been charged with making a web-visible reporting tool using the information in this system. we are not allowed to connect directly from CF to the sql database - there has to be a layer of abstraction between the web-visible server and the internal database. we've already done a version one, where we ran a seperate sql-server with linked views to the production sql-server. this has had many pitfalls, the main one being that you can't pass in parameters to a view - or link stored procs. basically we've had to make seperate views for each of the parameters that we wish to pass in (usually it's clientid, of which we only have about five at the moment) but it's a managability nightmare. so here's my question: how can i access the production db, either from the cf server or a separate db server, while still maintaining an abstracted level of security (and be able to pass in parameters)? There are about 3million records we're sifting through, so it's not practical to bring it into cf memory and filter from there. any ideas, for you advanced db guys? thanks grant --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "cfaussie" group. To post to this group, send email to cfaussie@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cfaussie -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[cfaussie] ot: db architecture question
hi all we've got a propriety system here that backends onto sql server. the system maintains all time entries and billing information for the firm - and in the firms view, this information is sacred and has about a million levels of security. I've been charged with making a web-visible reporting tool using the information in this system. we are not allowed to connect directly from CF to the sql database - there has to be a layer of abstraction between the web-visible server and the internal database. we've already done a version one, where we ran a seperate sql-server with linked views to the production sql-server. this has had many pitfalls, the main one being that you can't pass in parameters to a view - or link stored procs. basically we've had to make seperate views for each of the parameters that we wish to pass in (usually it's clientid, of which we only have about five at the moment) but it's a managability nightmare. so here's my question: how can i access the production db, either from the cf server or a separate db server, while still maintaining an abstracted level of security (and be able to pass in parameters)? There are about 3million records we're sifting through, so it's not practical to bring it into cf memory and filter from there. any ideas, for you advanced db guys? thanks grant --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "cfaussie" group. To post to this group, send email to cfaussie@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cfaussie -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[cfaussie] Re: OT: - cfaussie sucking the life out of me
"I am/was just letting off some steam.." I actually think it's healthy that ppl aren't afraid to constructively critisize some product - less "us and them" (Microsoft arrogance), more fuel for improvements, work arounds, etc. I remember when Spike was having a hell of a time with CF's XML implemementation (http://www.spike.org.uk/blog/index.cfm?do=blog.entry&entry=B495C724-D565-E33F-3A31D0EE819F1050), a place I used to work at dumped Verity in favour of Lucerne thanx to a CF7 (K2 really) issue, and in a similar manner, replaced cfdocument/cfreport with using the latest iText (Java) libraries. I could throw in lines about emperors and (missing) clothes and squeeky wheels getting the lube, etc...but you get the drift. On 7/6/06, Joel Cass <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Just ignore my post. > > I had a lot of difficulties with getting a perfectly good web service > working because of the inner workings of CF and its AXIS service. In the end > I had to modify countless config files and shuffle through the Java > subsystem to correct a configuration issue. > > No actually I don't love standards that much but it would be good to use a > system that was actually developed to consume and provide web services.. Not > just interact with some open source app. > > I know there are limitations with web services in general but it would be > good to have a platform that can actually serve them out in a predictable > way. At least in .net you would know that date/time is an issue and your web > service will still work after you restart the web server (please don't make > me explain or this message will be 3 pages long).. > > I am/was just letting off some steam.. > > Joel > > -Original Message- > From: cfaussie@googlegroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Behalf Of Barry Beattie > Sent: Thursday, 6 July 2006 10:11 AM > To: cfaussie@googlegroups.com > Subject: [cfaussie] Re: OT: - .NET sucking the life out of me > > > > "if it promises smoother and more standardised web service development." > > Joel (and apologies to Jeremy for drifting further OT)... > > I realise you're talking about server issues with erbservices (not > consuming them) but MS isn't without their webservice grief. it comes > down to MS thinking they know best when it comes to standards. > > (don't you just love standards? there's so many to choose from!) > > here's just one example from the Flexcoders list: > http://www.mail-archive.com/flexcoders@yahoogroups.com/msg30801.html > > but I'm sure others can chime in with having been caught out with > "nuiances" using .NET based webservices... > > > > On 7/6/06, Joel Cass <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > After all the issues I have had getting just one web service going on the > > new server I would gladly move over to .Net in a flash if it promises > > smoother and more standardised web service development. > > > > Adobe can shove their open source AXIS where the sun dont shine as far as > I > > care > > > > Joel > > > > -Original Message- > > From: cfaussie@googlegroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Behalf > > Of Shane Farmer > > Sent: Wednesday, 5 July 2006 8:40 PM > > To: cfaussie@googlegroups.com > > Subject: [cfaussie] Re: OT: - .NET sucking the life out of me > > > > > > You are absolutely right, Charlie. It would have been early last year they > > started thinking about the move. BD.net would have only made the change > less > > rushed as all code would eventually have been asp.net. As far as I know, > > this never eventuated and the company is still running CFMX. > > > > Shane > > > > > > On 7/5/06, Charlie Arehart < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Shane, that must have been over a year ago that you found BD.NET to be > in > > beta. It has long been in production use by many companies now, not the > > least of which is Myspace, which many know was a CF5 site that was gasping > > until they decided to move to .NET and found BD.NET a great way to make > the > > move while preserving their CFML investment--all with getting a bug bounce > > in performance. There are some who accuse it of being slower, but I know > > from the folks at Myspace (who watch their servers very closely and > > professionally) that there has indeed been considerable improvement. So > much > > so, in fact, that MS has made "great hay" of saying that it's running on > > .NET--without mentioning that it's CFML on .NET by way of BlueDragon. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "cfaussie" group. To post to this group, send email to cfaussie@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cfaussie -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[cfaussie] Re: OT: - cfaussie sucking the life out of me
Just ignore my post. I had a lot of difficulties with getting a perfectly good web service working because of the inner workings of CF and its AXIS service. In the end I had to modify countless config files and shuffle through the Java subsystem to correct a configuration issue. No actually I don't love standards that much but it would be good to use a system that was actually developed to consume and provide web services.. Not just interact with some open source app. I know there are limitations with web services in general but it would be good to have a platform that can actually serve them out in a predictable way. At least in .net you would know that date/time is an issue and your web service will still work after you restart the web server (please don't make me explain or this message will be 3 pages long).. I am/was just letting off some steam.. Joel -Original Message- From: cfaussie@googlegroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Barry Beattie Sent: Thursday, 6 July 2006 10:11 AM To: cfaussie@googlegroups.com Subject: [cfaussie] Re: OT: - .NET sucking the life out of me "if it promises smoother and more standardised web service development." Joel (and apologies to Jeremy for drifting further OT)... I realise you're talking about server issues with erbservices (not consuming them) but MS isn't without their webservice grief. it comes down to MS thinking they know best when it comes to standards. (don't you just love standards? there's so many to choose from!) here's just one example from the Flexcoders list: http://www.mail-archive.com/flexcoders@yahoogroups.com/msg30801.html but I'm sure others can chime in with having been caught out with "nuiances" using .NET based webservices... On 7/6/06, Joel Cass <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > After all the issues I have had getting just one web service going on the > new server I would gladly move over to .Net in a flash if it promises > smoother and more standardised web service development. > > Adobe can shove their open source AXIS where the sun dont shine as far as I > care > > Joel > > -Original Message- > From: cfaussie@googlegroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf > Of Shane Farmer > Sent: Wednesday, 5 July 2006 8:40 PM > To: cfaussie@googlegroups.com > Subject: [cfaussie] Re: OT: - .NET sucking the life out of me > > > You are absolutely right, Charlie. It would have been early last year they > started thinking about the move. BD.net would have only made the change less > rushed as all code would eventually have been asp.net. As far as I know, > this never eventuated and the company is still running CFMX. > > Shane > > > On 7/5/06, Charlie Arehart < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Shane, that must have been over a year ago that you found BD.NET to be in > beta. It has long been in production use by many companies now, not the > least of which is Myspace, which many know was a CF5 site that was gasping > until they decided to move to .NET and found BD.NET a great way to make the > move while preserving their CFML investment--all with getting a bug bounce > in performance. There are some who accuse it of being slower, but I know > from the folks at Myspace (who watch their servers very closely and > professionally) that there has indeed been considerable improvement. So much > so, in fact, that MS has made "great hay" of saying that it's running on > .NET--without mentioning that it's CFML on .NET by way of BlueDragon. > > > > > > > > > --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "cfaussie" group. To post to this group, send email to cfaussie@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cfaussie -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[cfaussie] Re: OT: - .NET sucking the life out of me
"if it promises smoother and more standardised web service development." Joel (and apologies to Jeremy for drifting further OT)... I realise you're talking about server issues with erbservices (not consuming them) but MS isn't without their webservice grief. it comes down to MS thinking they know best when it comes to standards. (don't you just love standards? there's so many to choose from!) here's just one example from the Flexcoders list: http://www.mail-archive.com/flexcoders@yahoogroups.com/msg30801.html but I'm sure others can chime in with having been caught out with "nuiances" using .NET based webservices... On 7/6/06, Joel Cass <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > After all the issues I have had getting just one web service going on the > new server I would gladly move over to .Net in a flash if it promises > smoother and more standardised web service development. > > Adobe can shove their open source AXIS where the sun dont shine as far as I > care > > Joel > > -Original Message- > From: cfaussie@googlegroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf > Of Shane Farmer > Sent: Wednesday, 5 July 2006 8:40 PM > To: cfaussie@googlegroups.com > Subject: [cfaussie] Re: OT: - .NET sucking the life out of me > > > You are absolutely right, Charlie. It would have been early last year they > started thinking about the move. BD.net would have only made the change less > rushed as all code would eventually have been asp.net. As far as I know, > this never eventuated and the company is still running CFMX. > > Shane > > > On 7/5/06, Charlie Arehart < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Shane, that must have been over a year ago that you found BD.NET to be in > beta. It has long been in production use by many companies now, not the > least of which is Myspace, which many know was a CF5 site that was gasping > until they decided to move to .NET and found BD.NET a great way to make the > move while preserving their CFML investment--all with getting a bug bounce > in performance. There are some who accuse it of being slower, but I know > from the folks at Myspace (who watch their servers very closely and > professionally) that there has indeed been considerable improvement. So much > so, in fact, that MS has made "great hay" of saying that it's running on > .NET--without mentioning that it's CFML on .NET by way of BlueDragon. > > > > > > > > > --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "cfaussie" group. To post to this group, send email to cfaussie@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cfaussie -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[cfaussie] Re: OT: - .NET sucking the life out of me
After all the issues I have had getting just one web service going on the new server I would gladly move over to .Net in a flash if it promises smoother and more standardised web service development. Adobe can shove their open source AXIS where the sun dont shine as far as I care Joel -Original Message-From: cfaussie@googlegroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Shane FarmerSent: Wednesday, 5 July 2006 8:40 PMTo: cfaussie@googlegroups.comSubject: [cfaussie] Re: OT: - .NET sucking the life out of meYou are absolutely right, Charlie. It would have been early last year they started thinking about the move. BD.net would have only made the change less rushed as all code would eventually have been asp.net. As far as I know, this never eventuated and the company is still running CFMX.Shane On 7/5/06, Charlie Arehart < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Shane, that must have been over a year ago that you found BD.NET to be in beta. It has long been in production use by many companies now, not the least of which is Myspace, which many know was a CF5 site that was gasping until they decided to move to .NET and found BD.NET a great way to make the move while preserving their CFML investment--all with getting a bug bounce in performance. There are some who accuse it of being slower, but I know from the folks at Myspace (who watch their servers very closely and professionally) that there has indeed been considerable improvement. So much so, in fact, that MS has made "great hay" of saying that it's running on .NET--without mentioning that it's CFML on .NET by way of BlueDragon. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "cfaussie" group. To post to this group, send email to cfaussie@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cfaussie -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[cfaussie] Re: creating .doc files in Coldfusion
I remember looking into the use of the COM object approach in the past and somehow i think it breaks liscencing rules ?at the very least it requires a copy of office installed on th server.Pat On 7/5/06, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hey guys,Yeah I agree with most of what you guys have saidTurns out theywant to use com objects*sigh* no one ever listens to me.Thanks everyoneJeremy --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "cfaussie" group. To post to this group, send email to cfaussie@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cfaussie -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[cfaussie] Re: creating .doc files in Coldfusion
Yes, this works well. You really only need the BLOB option if there is more than ascii in the file (eg pictures). WIth Oracle you dont even need the cf admin option turned on. From: "Patrick Branley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Reply-To: cfaussie@googlegroups.comTo: cfaussie@googlegroups.comSubject: [cfaussie] Re: creating .doc files in ColdfusionDate: Wed, 5 Jul 2006 09:31:44 +1000 The other option that works is just to serve up HTML and set the content type to msword/document and set the extension to *.doc in the content-disposition header.eg. #htmlContent#Im pretty sure any version of word past about 97 will open up html files. You can get the formatting you need by creating the doc in word then saving it as HTML. then just output all the embedded CSS that word puts into the document. Its bascially the same technique as RTF but gives you a bit nice source code to work with to apply formatting to. hthPatps. it works with excel documents too. On 7/5/06, Mark Ireland <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: There is always the BLOB. From: "Rod Higgins" < [EMAIL PROTECTED]>Reply-To: cfaussie@googlegroups.comTo: < cfaussie@googlegroups.com>Subject: [cfaussie] Re: creating .doc files in ColdfusionDate: Tue, 4 Jul 2006 16:03:42 +1000 >>I've used POI successfully before. The other option is too create the word>document save it as html then use CF to create the same html and save as a >.doc file. If the application's users have Office 2003, xml might be an>option as well.>>All options work it just depends on your needs.>>- Original Message ->From: "" < [EMAIL PROTECTED]>>To: "cfaussie" < cfaussie@googlegroups.com>>Sent: Tuesday, July 04, 2006 3:56 PM>Subject: [cfaussie] creating .doc files in Coldfusion>>> >> > Hey guys,> >> > I have a need to create word documents on the file based on data. Has> > anyone done this and if so can they point me in the right direction. I > > had a look at lots of examples on the web using COM objects but they> > all seem to be having issues.> >> > Jeremy> >> >> > >> >> >> Find lost friends & family online! Search for free. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "cfaussie" group. To post to this group, send email to cfaussie@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cfaussie -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[cfaussie] Re: OT: - .NET sucking the life out of me
You are absolutely right, Charlie. It would have been early last year they started thinking about the move. BD.net would have only made the change less rushed as all code would eventually have been asp.net. As far as I know, this never eventuated and the company is still running CFMX.ShaneOn 7/5/06, Charlie Arehart < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Shane, that must have been over a year ago that you found BD.NET to be in beta. It has long been in production use by many companies now, not the least of which is Myspace, which many know was a CF5 site that was gasping until they decided to move to .NET and found BD.NET a great way to make the move while preserving their CFML investment--all with getting a bug bounce in performance. There are some who accuse it of being slower, but I know from the folks at Myspace (who watch their servers very closely and professionally) that there has indeed been considerable improvement. So much so, in fact, that MS has made "great hay" of saying that it's running on .NET--without mentioning that it's CFML on .NET by way of BlueDragon. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "cfaussie" group. To post to this group, send email to cfaussie@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cfaussie -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
