this. Some people say it's great, other people
are
still on the fence (and they work on the same kind of apps, I should
mention).
- Original Message -
From: "Cantrell, Adam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 2:37 pm
Subject: RE: CF6 &
rs by turning it into a server-side scripting technology.
Now
> EVERYONE is writing their "enterprise-level" systems on the same
technology
> that was used to design those slow, crummy "Water Reflection" applets from
> the mid 90's. Is this a good thing?
sign those slow, crummy "Water Reflection" applets from
the mid 90's. Is this a good thing?
> -Original Message-
> From: Billy Cravens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 11:32 AM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: Re: CF6 & true J2EE Compliance
> So was the RedHat support issue,
Not to the best of my knowledge. Red Hat was/is supported for CF primarily
becasue Red Hat sells and provides support for their OS products.
__
Get Your Own Dedicated Windows 2000 Server
PIII
> I find this rather disappointing, because other than some
> performance gains, it doesn't appear that CF will be changing
> much (so much for sales to those who have already made
> significant J2EE investments across the enterprise). Though
> from MM's point of view, it makes perfect sense (e
CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 12:32 PM
Subject: Re: CF6 & true J2EE Compliance (was Re: Macromedia.com)
> I would agree, and would hate to see many of those features go away.
> However, many of the marketing claims I've heard is that you ca
;Dave Watts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 2:38 PM
Subject: RE: CF6 & true J2EE Compliance (was Re: Macromedia.com)
> > > In other words, they make it sound as if I can take my
> > > class file
> (If memory serves me correct, can't CF6 run by itself? I
> hope so. Otherwise the cost of CF6 goes way up.)
My understanding is that there will be different "flavors" of Neo: a
standalone version which provides a cut-down version of JRun, a version for
WebLogic, a version for WebSphere, and po
lt;[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 2:27 PM
Subject: RE: CF6 & true J2EE Compliance (was Re: Macromedia.com)
> > Then why is there an Apache module?
>
> User demand? Besides, that was produced by Allaire not M
would
consider using even a beta version of Neo if the NEO release was in the
foreseeable future.
Duane
-Original Message-
From: Dave Watts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 3:38 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: CF6 & true J2EE Compliance (was Re: Macromedia
> > In other words, they make it sound as if I can take my
> > class files generated on a Win32 box and move them anywhere
> > I want - even on a machine without CF.
>
> If the CF code is compiled to Java byte-code, this would
> certainly be possible.
Well, not really, I don't think. There wil
> Then why is there an Apache module?
User demand? Besides, that was produced by Allaire not Macromedia.
__
Why Share?
Dedicated Win 2000 Server · PIII 800 / 256 MB RAM / 40 GB HD / 20 GB MO/XFER
Instant Activation · $99/Mont
If the CF code is compiled to Java byte-code, this would certainly be
possible.
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 01/30/02 09:32AM >>>
In other words, they make it sound as if I can take my class files
generated on
a Win32 box and move them anywhere I want - even on a machine without CF.
___
> However, many of the marketing claims I've heard is that you
> can put the generated class files on any "supported" J2EE
> engine and they'll run. In other words, they make it sound
> as if I can take my class files generated on a Win32 box
> and move them anywhere I want - even on a machine
Then why is there an Apache module?
- Original Message -
From: "Zac Belado" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 12:08 PM
Subject: RE: CF6 & true J2EE Compliance (was Re: Macromedia.com)
>
ival)
- Original Message -
From: "Dave Watts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 10:56 AM
Subject: RE: CF6 & true J2EE Compliance (was Re: Macromedia.com)
> > If it's true J2EE, it should be
> Of course, you'll notice that they in
> the initial public Neo info that they are only supporting a limited set of
> J2EE engines (interestingly enough, all of them are commercial products -
> even though there are a number of open-source J2EE products that are fully
> compliant).
Not "interest
ginal Message-
From: Dave Watts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 8:56 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: CF6 & true J2EE Compliance (was Re: Macromedia.com)
> If it's true J2EE, it should be portable across all J2EE
> platforms. Of course, you'll notice
> If it's true J2EE, it should be portable across all J2EE
> platforms. Of course, you'll notice that they in the initial
> public Neo info that they are only supporting a limited set of
> J2EE engines (interestingly enough, all of them are commercial
> products - even though there are a number
Of course they aren't. However, I don't MS should be the standard that MM
uses to measure themselves against. If it's true J2EE, it should be
portable across all J2EE platforms. Of course, you'll notice that they in
the initial public Neo info that they are only supporting a limited set of
J2EE
20 matches
Mail list logo
