: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 8:33 AM
To: cf-community
Subject: Re: CF question
To answer Bruce's question:
The major changes in 10 are to the backside, JRun is no more. It's built on
Tomcat. So far it seems to much more responsive.
The same goes for Verity, being replaced with Solr. You st
To answer Bruce's question:
The major changes in 10 are to the backside, JRun is no more. It's built
on Tomcat. So far it seems to much more responsive.
The same goes for Verity, being replaced with Solr. You still handle
collections the same way, just a different server on the back end.
Anyth
I will be spending the entirety of my day today trying to get our
application changes deployed to the next environment. We have a database
that contains meta data that's used to construct an XML file that our .NET
application reads and converts into SQL to run against user submitted data
files fo
CFBuilder2 is nicer than Builder1. The real impressive parts of
builder are the extensions and server additions. You can transfer your
snippets from CFEclipse to CFBuilder easily. There are a lot of other
small stuff that help as well, although the keyboard shortcuts take
getting used to. One nice
CF10 is so new that I think the jury's still out. But I have faith. The
Developer version is free, so it's really no bother to give it a shot. I'd
also give Railo a look. It's come a long way.
CFBuilder isn't worth the money IMHO. As Eric said, it's a little crashy
and slow. Unless you are goin
I haven't played with 10 yet...but the description seems like it has a lot
of great features. As far as an IDE...i didn't like cfbuilder at all. It
has some good features, but overall I found it slow and buggy. I use
CFEclipse.
-Original Message-
From: Bruce Sorge [mailto:sor...@gmail.c
wrote:
>
> Yeah I sent some suggestions off list.
>
> I would likely call them façade objects.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Maureen [mailto:mamamaur...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, February 08, 2010 7:50 PM
> To: cf-community
> Subject: Re: cf question
>
>
>
ok so. To me it sounds like this is unsettling as nomenclature goes?
Because what I am wondering is how to address it in an article that is
only tangentially related to CFCs.
On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 8:26 PM, denstar wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 11:48 AM, Judah McAuley wrote:
>>
>> Because it
On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 11:48 AM, Judah McAuley wrote:
>
> Because it is a System CFC in the Services Browser. CFBuilder seems to
> have changed the CFC Explorer to a Services Browswer, so now all your
> CFCs are magically Services :)
>
Hey, sweet! I always wanted to do SOA!
And hey, at least th
On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 1:42 PM, denstar wrote:
> Though "system" /is/ better than "service". :)
CF9 also exposes those CFCs a "Services" that a Flex app can consume.
-Cameron
..
~|
Want to reach the ColdFusion community with
Because it is a System CFC in the Services Browser. CFBuilder seems to
have changed the CFC Explorer to a Services Browswer, so now all your
CFCs are magically Services :)
Judah
On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 10:42 AM, denstar wrote:
>
> I don't know why I kept reading "service" when it was "system" (i
I don't know why I kept reading "service" when it was "system" (it's
the drugs!). :)
I think I would have opted for "built in component" or maybe "core
component", something with a little less baggage.
Though "system" /is/ better than "service". :)
:Den
--
A good portion of speaking will co
On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 5:52 AM, LRS Scout wrote:
>
> So what's the community consensus?
Well, they don't have the power to change CFBuilder/Adobe, so I think
they pretty much have to use the terminology that the users will see.
Maybe add a hyperlink footnote deal to something that clarifies what
Yes, Real Soon Now! :)
:den
--
There is no such thing as justice in the abstract; it is merely a
compact between men.
Epicurus
On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 5:51 AM, LRS Scout wrote:
>
> Are they still open sourcing the cfml spec?
>
> Has it no come out for 9 yet?
~~
On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 1:08 PM, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
> the problem i see with putting a cfc wrapper around the mail tag for
> the benefit of cfscript is that its another layer of overhead.
Honestly, I would prefer a CFC wrapper over the tag. The minimal
overhead it creates is well worth the ba
there's one project I'm working on now that's a weird melange of java,
cf and vbs. the cool thing about this is how easy CF can coordinate
all of this and still be a rad.
the problem i see with putting a cfc wrapper around the mail tag for
the benefit of cfscript is that its another layer of over
I was surprised that they wrote a wrapper cfc to invoke the cfmail
tag, honestly, because I think that under the hood, cfmail is really
invoking javamail. I could be wrong of course. I guess the theory
behind Adobe's approach is that the tags are already written and work
and it was easy to write a
t; cfmail, however, is still a tag.
>
> Judah
>
> On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 4:52 AM, LRS Scout wrote:
>>
>> So what's the community consensus?
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: denstar [mailto:valliants...@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, February
ry 09, 2010 1:57 AM
> To: cf-community
> Subject: Re: cf question
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 9:20 PM, Judah McAuley wrote:
> ...
>> cfmail is a tag. mail is a CFC.
>
> Yeah, a "service" CFC. *snicker*
>
> That sounds like a name for something that *I
So what's the community consensus?
-Original Message-
From: denstar [mailto:valliants...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2010 1:57 AM
To: cf-community
Subject: Re: cf question
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 9:20 PM, Judah McAuley wrote:
...
> cfmail is a tag. mail is a CFC.
Are they still open sourcing the cfml spec?
Has it no come out for 9 yet?
-Original Message-
From: denstar [mailto:valliants...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, February 08, 2010 9:22 PM
To: cf-community
Subject: Re: cf question
I'm holding my breath for the language spec. :)
--
Th
Agreed.
-Original Message-
From: Cameron Childress [mailto:camer...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, February 08, 2010 8:39 PM
To: cf-community
Subject: Re: cf question
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 7:59 PM, LRS Scout wrote:
> That answers that.
>
> "System CFCs" it is.
If A
Yeah thats how I thought it was working. It's just a mask, a façade class
:)
-Original Message-
From: Judah McAuley [mailto:ju...@wiredotter.com]
Sent: Monday, February 08, 2010 8:28 PM
To: cf-community
Subject: Re: cf question
Actually, it turns out that I was backwards. cfma
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 9:20 PM, Judah McAuley wrote:
...
> cfmail is a tag. mail is a CFC.
Yeah, a "service" CFC. *snicker*
That sounds like a name for something that *I'd* come up with.
Not. Confusing. At. All.
Still, give it a few months of everyone using it, and viola, it is what it is!
In the context of the article, on CFBuilder, the Service Browser is
looking at a CFC, not a tag. However, it is actually looking at a CFC
called mail.cfc, not cfmail. I think that is the source of the
confusion.
cfmail is a tag. mail is a CFC.
Judah
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 7:02 PM, Michael Dinow
CFMail is a tag. The cfmail service is a wrapper for cfmail exposing
its functionality to outside applications such as flex. The cfmail
'function' is just a cfc that also wraps the cfmail tag so that it can
be used in cfscript. But the base is the cfmail tag. Tag, not cfc.
Tag, not service.
--
Mi
I'm holding my breath for the language spec. :)
--
The art of living well and the art of dying well are one.
Epicurus
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 6:38 PM, Cameron Childress wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 7:59 PM, LRS Scout wrote:
>> That answers that.
>>
>> "System CFCs" it is.
>
> If Adobe wan
I think, in the end, the confusion is thus:
Up to and including CF8, there was only one way to send mail and that
was using the cfmail tag.
As of CF9, you can still use the cfmail tag, but you can also send
mail by using CreateObject("component", "mail") within cfscript. This
means that "mail" i
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 7:59 PM, LRS Scout wrote:
> That answers that.
>
> "System CFCs" it is.
If Adobe wants to start using that to describe them, so be it. They
may very well literally be CFCs stored in a directory within CF9.
Still feels weird to call them that though.
-Cameron
...
~~
Actually, it turns out that I was backwards. cfmail is not a wrapper
for a new mail object, the new mail object is a wrapper for cfmail.
If you take a look at (in a default install)
c:\ColdFusion9\CustomTags\com\adobe\coldfusion\mail.cfc you will see
what is being called when you do a CreateObje
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 5:00 PM, Maureen wrote:
>
> My take on this
> 1. CFMAIL is a tag. It might have properties beyond a standard tag,
> but it's still a tag, and works with tag syntax.
> 2. Calling it from the script exposes it as a object not a component.
> 3. Unless you can call it with cfi
not to inject epistemology into this, but can an piece of software
mislabel itself? I am asking.
so would that make it not unlike an object which is an instance of a
class in other languages? I am asking.
I take it you cannot call cfmail with cfinvoke? Now I am really
asking, as I dunno.
On Mon
t; From: Dana [mailto:dana.tier...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, February 08, 2010 7:58 PM
> To: cf-community
> Subject: Re: cf question
>
>
> Judah sent me a screenshot of a tool tip that says "Show System CFCs"
>
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 5:55 PM, Dana wrote:
>> judah an
My take on this
1. CFMAIL is a tag. It might have properties beyond a standard tag,
but it's still a tag, and works with tag syntax.
2. Calling it from the script exposes it as a object not a component.
3. Unless you can call it with cfinvoke, and have control over
parameters and return data type
That answers that.
"System CFCs" it is.
-Original Message-
From: Dana [mailto:dana.tier...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, February 08, 2010 7:58 PM
To: cf-community
Subject: Re: cf question
Judah sent me a screenshot of a tool tip that says "Show System CFCs"
On Mon,
Judah sent me a screenshot of a tool tip that says "Show System CFCs"
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 5:55 PM, Dana wrote:
> judah and loathe are both saying that based on the interface the
> sentence is confusing but not incorrect. Loathe is saying maybe the
> term should be facade classes. Judah is say
judah and loathe are both saying that based on the interface the
sentence is confusing but not incorrect. Loathe is saying maybe the
term should be facade classes. Judah is saying that Adobe itself is
calling these cfcs. I am thinking that if the term is this
controversial we should probably have
Yeah I sent some suggestions off list.
I would likely call them façade objects.
-Original Message-
From: Maureen [mailto:mamamaur...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, February 08, 2010 7:50 PM
To: cf-community
Subject: Re: cf question
I agree with Cameron. I would see this as a tag exposed
I agree with Cameron. I would see this as a tag exposed as an object,
or service, but not as a cfc. Components are very different, both in
how they are invoked, and the control the developer has over them.
IMO, referring to a tag as a cfc invites confusion.
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 3:42 PM, Dana
noted. I am not sure what the "correct" nomenclature is. And while I
am interested in the question, I am also pretty far behind in several
projects, so if we can resolve the issue without me having to install
cf builder and do 2 weeks of reading, that will increase the odd of
faqu 9 not being subj
I guess I could sort of buy this, but I would still think of this as
"CF tags exposed as services" in the case of their exposure as remote
services. I would also consider calling them in CFSCRIPT as calling
them as objects, not really as CFCs.
I tend to look at CFCs as code a developer writes.
awesome thank you both. If someone asks you why you have access, refer
them to me. the owner is probably Judith, who will know what's up, but
we had a little confusion once when it was the author.
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 3:35 PM, Judah McAuley wrote:
>
> If you want to send it along to me as well
If you want to send it along to me as well, I'd be happy to take a look.
I have an older beta of CF Builder installed but it isn't a problem
for me to update to the newest if that helps.
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 1:36 PM, Dana wrote:
>
> you know .. that would really help. There is also some wierd
Sure, no problem.
I'm heading home, gonna eat, but should be back on after that.
-Original Message-
From: Dana [mailto:dana.tier...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, February 08, 2010 4:36 PM
To: cf-community
Subject: Re: cf question
you know .. that would really help. There is also
>
> I'll install beta 3 and get back to you tonight.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Dana [mailto:dana.tier...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, February 08, 2010 4:22 PM
> To: cf-community
> Subject: Re: cf question
>
>
> strikethrough is not making it, let
o: cf-community
Subject: Re: cf question
strikethrough is not making it, let me try that again:
I was wondering that because a little later it says:
If you are using CF9 you can specify that CFB should
generate the CFC using the new script component syntax instead of tags.
> the paragr
, 2010 at 12:11 PM, LRS Scout wrote:
>> >
>> > It's wrong factually.
>> >
>> > cfmail and cfquery are tags, not cfcs.
>> >
>> > -Original Message-
>> > From: Dana [mailto:dana.tier...@gmail.com]
>> > Sent: Monday,
e tags, not cfcs.
> >
> > -Original Message-----
> > From: Dana [mailto:dana.tier...@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Monday, February 08, 2010 3:08 PM
> > To: cf-community
> > Subject: Re: cf question
> >
> >
> > Really. The sentence as it stands is:
&
l and cfquery are tags, not cfcs.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Dana [mailto:dana.tier...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, February 08, 2010 3:08 PM
> To: cf-community
> Subject: Re: cf question
>
>
> Really. The sentence as it stands is:
>
> Interestingly, you will also see
Yes.
I think I would word it different though, would need to know the context of
the paragraph.
-Original Message-
From: Dana [mailto:dana.tier...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, February 08, 2010 3:17 PM
To: cf-community
Subject: Re: cf question
alright. But native tag would be correct
the author is making the point that it's not just the stuff you wrote that
appears on the list. I didn't like "is part of ColdFusion" is what I was on
about this is about the Services Browser, don't suppose that makes a
difference? I have not looked at CFB yet.
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 1:35 PM,
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 3:16 PM, Dana wrote:
> alright. But native tag would be correct? Man, that makes me want to do a
> tech edit on the rest of this too. Supposed to have already been done,
> mumble.
I would typically just call it a "tag", though I suppose you could say
"native tag" to differ
re tags, not cfcs.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Dana [mailto:dana.tier...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, February 08, 2010 3:08 PM
> To: cf-community
> Subject: Re: cf question
>
>
> Really. The sentence as it stands is:
>
> Interestingly, you will also see CFCs that are part
It's wrong factually.
cfmail and cfquery are tags, not cfcs.
-Original Message-
From: Dana [mailto:dana.tier...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, February 08, 2010 3:08 PM
To: cf-community
Subject: Re: cf question
Really. The sentence as it stands is:
Interestingly, you will also see
and yes, I know this is all in the livedocs. Thank you for saving me the
trouble.
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 1:08 PM, Dana wrote:
> Really. The sentence as it stands is:
>
> Interestingly, you will also see CFCs that are part of the ColdFusion
> programming language, like for cfmail and cfquery for
Really. The sentence as it stands is:
Interestingly, you will also see CFCs that are part of the ColdFusion
programming language, like for cfmail and cfquery for example.
I was proposing to use native instead but you're saying it's wrong in the
first place? Or does that "for" change the meaning?
no its a tag not a cfc.
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 2:54 PM, Dana wrote:
>
> is it correct to describe cfmail as a CFC native to ColdFusion?
>
>
>
~|
Want to reach the ColdFusion community with something they want? Let them know
o
No.
It is a CF Tag native to ColdFusion.
-Original Message-
From: Dana [mailto:dana.tier...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, February 08, 2010 2:55 PM
To: cf-community
Subject: cf question
is it correct to describe cfmail as a CFC native to ColdFusion?
yup thats what i ended up with too :) thanks!
-- tony
Better than a thousand hollow words, is one word that brings peace.
-- siddhartha gautama
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 12:04 PM, JediHomer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Try
>
> IdleSeconds, Address, City, State, Zip, Place, PlaceId, BeginTime,
>
Then I'd just run 1 query let sql do the work for you if you have the memory
on the cf box to store it.
-Original Message-
From: Tony [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 12:02 PM
To: cf-community
Subject: Re: cf question... weird i know
nah, two diff
also,
Try
2008/11/3 Tony <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> nah, two diff
>
> also, whats wrong with my notation in naming the query here?
>
> IdleSeconds, Address, City, State, Zip, Place, PlaceId, BeginTime,
> EndTime") />
>
> thanks!
>
> -- tony
>
> Better than a thousand hollow words, is one word that brin
nah, two diff
also, whats wrong with my notation in naming the query here?
thanks!
-- tony
Better than a thousand hollow words, is one word that brings peace.
-- siddhartha gautama
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 11:48 AM, Scott Raley -ITC <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Everything on the same box? Cf
Everything on the same box? Cf and sql server?
-Original Message-
From: Tony [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 11:26 AM
To: cf-community
Subject: cf question... weird i know
if you had 1 rows for a queryNew() query you were going to
construct to store in memor
Personally i would avoid QoQand do 5 separate Views in SQL server.
let the sql server do the retrieval.
~|
Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to
date
Get the Free Trial
http://ad.doublecli
On 1/24/07, Duane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Prêmio de Liderança e Gestão -> Prêmio de Liderança e Gestão
XMLFormat == Prêmio de Liderança e Gestão
You could then maybe run an XSL transform on it or some such...
Seems silly. Good cf-talk question. I can relay if you'd like.
Humphrey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 10:30 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: CF Question
>
> On 1/24/07, Duane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Is there a built in CF function that will take a string with accented
> > characters
Thanks - just didnt want to re-invent the wheel if it already existed.
Duane
-Original Message-
From: C. Hatton Humphrey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 10:30 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: CF Question
On 1/24/07, Duane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
On 1/24/07, Duane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is there a built in CF function that will take a string with accented
> characters and convert it to its equivalent with html codes? (I'd ask on the
> CFTalk list but I unsubbed ages ago)
>
> Ex:
>
> Prêmio de Liderança e Gestão -> Prêmio de Liderança
Adam Haskell wrote:
> for SQL server I don't think so It only goes back to 1700 something I
> thinkI'vew been wrong before about SQL server though :)
1753
If the feasure for the validity of a certain date were whether it were
supported in some application any date past 2000 would be an inval
Adam Haskell wrote:
> for SQL server I don't think so It only goes back to 1700 something I
> thinkI'vew been wrong before about SQL server though :)
1753
If the measure for the validity of a certain date were whether it were
supported in some application any date past 2000 would be an inval
for SQL server I don't think so It only goes back to 1700 something I
thinkI'vew been wrong before about SQL server though :)
Adam H
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 20:03:48 -0400, Jochem van Dieten
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Tony Weeg wrote:
> > 01/26/0222
> >
> > is that a valid date.
>
> Yes.
>
>
Tony Weeg wrote:
> 01/26/0222
>
> is that a valid date.
Yes.
Jochem
~|
Find out how CFTicket can increase your company's customer support
efficiency by 100%
http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=49
Message: h
day, January 26, 2005 10:45 AM
...To: CF-Community
...Subject: Re: cf question :)
...
...try using that date in SQL Server.
...
...i know cf likes it, but that doesnt mean its a valid date.
...
...tw
...
...
...On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 13:36:05 -0500, Jerry Johnson
...<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wr
What do you mean by "valid"? Valid to whom?
Was it an actual date in history? I think so. Does it work in every computer
system ever made. I doubt it.
If you mean does MS Sql Server consider it valid, I don't know.
Jerry Johnson
Web Developer
Dolan Media Company
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 01/26/0
> From: Tony Weeg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> try using that date in SQL Server.
>
> i know cf likes it, but that doesnt mean its a valid date.
Stop acting like I didn't just chat with you on AIM! Validate your date
format using a combination of techniques.. isDate() is screwey!
try using that date in SQL Server.
i know cf likes it, but that doesnt mean its a valid date.
tw
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 13:36:05 -0500, Jerry Johnson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> #isdate("01/26/0222")#
>
> YES
>
> Jerry Johnson
> Web Developer
> Dolan Media Company
>
> >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 01/
> -Original Message-
> From: Tony Weeg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2005 1:25 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: cf question :)
>
> 01/26/0222
>
> is that a valid date.
Just so you know (I got this from a friend on the CF Dev team) there's a
standing internal fu
> From: Tony Weeg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> dont make me fuck you up :)
LOL... Bring it!
~|
Discover CFTicket - The leading ColdFusion Help Desk and Trouble
Ticket application
http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm
> Michael T. Tangorre
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Tony Weeg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2005 1:39 PM
> > To: CF-Community
>
> > Subject: Re: cf question :)
> >
> > again, i ask...
> >
> > is
#isdate("01/26/0222")#
YES
Jerry Johnson
Web Developer
Dolan Media Company
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 01/26/05 01:38PM >>>
again, i ask...
is
01/26/0222
a valid date?
tw
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 13:34:49 -0500, Michael T. Tangorre
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> American Style: MM/DD/
> European
Put 2 and 2 together!!!
Which style date does it fit?
Michael T. Tangorre
> -Original Message-
> From: Tony Weeg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2005 1:39 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: cf question :)
>
> again, i ask...
>
again, i ask...
is
01/26/0222
a valid date?
tw
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 13:34:49 -0500, Michael T. Tangorre
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> American Style: MM/DD/
> European Style: DD/MM/
> ISO Locale Neutral Format: -MM-DD
>
> :-)
>
> Michael T. Tangorre
>
> > -Original Message-
American Style: MM/DD/
European Style: DD/MM/
ISO Locale Neutral Format: -MM-DD
:-)
Michael T. Tangorre
> -Original Message-
> From: Tony Weeg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2005 1:25 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: cf question :)
>
> 01/26/02
83 matches
Mail list logo
