On Tuesday 09 Sep 2003 03:14 am, Matt Liotta wrote:
help you much on Linux since Office doesn't support Linux.
I think Office runs under Wine (certainly the CrossOver people think so !), I
would expect it's (Office's) COM intergration to work too.
--
Tom Chiverton (sorry 'bout sig.)
Advanced
On Tuesday 09 Sep 2003 14:56 pm, Matt Liotta wrote:
I think Office runs under Wine (certainly the CrossOver people think
so !), I
would expect it's (Office's) COM intergration to work too.
I don't believe that the ability to emulate the Windows API has
anything to do with whether or not
I think Office runs under Wine (certainly the CrossOver
people think so !), I would expect it's (Office's) COM
intergration to work too.
I would too, within WINE, but I doubt that WINE exports COM APIs to the
larger environment of the OS. I don't use WINE, though, so I'm not sure of
this.
On Saturday 06 Sep 2003 01:18 am, Matt Liotta wrote:
What we have done is re-implement the CFX API in .NET and then hosted
that inside of a CFX tag implemented as a DLL.
As opposed to implementing the .Net calls in a CFML tag, which would have
helped the non-Win32 folks a lot !
--
Tom
(dunno where the body of this went last time !)
On Saturday 06 Sep 2003 01:18 am, Matt Liotta wrote:
What we have done is re-implement the CFX API in .NET and then hosted
that inside of a CFX tag implemented as a DLL.
As opposed to implementing the .Net calls in a CFML tag, which would have
What we have done is re-implement the CFX API in .NET and
then hosted that inside of a CFX tag implemented as a DLL.
As opposed to implementing the .Net calls in a CFML tag,
which would have helped the non-Win32 folks a lot !
How many non-Win32 folks are using .NET? I know about Mono
What we have done is re-implement the CFX API in .NET and
then hosted that inside of a CFX tag implemented as a DLL.
As opposed to implementing the .Net calls in a CFML tag,
which would have helped the non-Win32 folks a lot !
(I didn't think of this question in time for my first
As opposed to implementing the .Net calls in a CFML tag, which would
have
helped the non-Win32 folks a lot !
I don't understand what you mean, could you clarify?
Matt Liotta
President CEO
Montara Software, Inc.
http://www.MontaraSoftware.com
(888) 408-0900 x901
On Monday 08 Sep 2003 14:01 pm, Matt Liotta wrote:
As opposed to implementing the .Net calls in a CFML tag, which would
have
helped the non-Win32 folks a lot !
I don't understand what you mean, could you clarify?
Maybe I've read this wrong, but you've writen a Win32 DLL that talks .Net, so
Maybe I've read this wrong, but you've writen a Win32 DLL
that talks .Net, so you can use a .Net language to write
CFX tags, providing your server is on Win32 so can load the
CFX. If you had chosen instead to write a Java/C CFX that
talked .Net, you could call .Net packages (assemblys ?)
Maybe I've read this wrong, but you've writen a Win32 DLL that talks
.Net, so
you can use a .Net language to write CFX tags, providing your server
is on
Win32 so can load the CFX.
If you had chosen instead to write a Java/C CFX that talked .Net, you
could
call .Net packages (assemblys
On Monday 08 Sep 2003 14:27 pm, Matt Liotta wrote:
We did the write the DLL in C++, so you can call .NET assemblies
directly. However, the DLL is native to Windows, thus an SO will need
to be written for *nix to support Mono.
I'd like to suggest you do so - this will greatly broaden the use of
I'd like to suggest you do so - this will greatly broaden the use of
CF, as
it'll then be able to support 'native' Linux .Net apps...
We don't believe there is significant demand currently for native Linux
.NET applications.
We wouldn't purchase it at the moment, but I bet people using the
made it clear no pricing information has been
announced, can you give us any indication of the range where it might
fall?
Thanks,
M
-Original Message-
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, September 06, 2003 1:04 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: .NET integration without
On Monday 08 Sep 2003 14:46 pm, Matt Liotta wrote:
I'd like to suggest you do so - this will greatly broaden the use of
CF, as
it'll then be able to support 'native' Linux .Net apps...
We don't believe there is significant demand currently for native Linux
.NET applications.
I'm just
This sounds like an excellent product that would be quite useful. In
fact, I am kind of surprised to be hearing about this so
out-of-the-blue.
We've been working all summer under the radar to produce some
interesting technology. This is the first of many such projects.
Can you clarify what
I'm just glad your aware of the prospect, t'is all :-)
Don't mistake us as a Windows only shop. All of our production servers
are Linux, my development machine is Mac OS X, and we actually host the
US CVS mirror for Mono. In short, when and if Mono --or Portable.NET
for that matter-- is ready
On Monday, Sep 8, 2003, at 06:40 US/Pacific, Thomas Chiverton wrote:
On Monday 08 Sep 2003 14:27 pm, Matt Liotta wrote:
We did the write the DLL in C++, so you can call .NET assemblies
directly. However, the DLL is native to Windows, thus an SO will need
to be written for *nix to support Mono.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, September 08, 2003 11:07 AM
Subject: Re: .NET integration without COM
On Monday, Sep 8, 2003, at 06:40 US/Pacific, Thomas Chiverton wrote:
On Monday 08 Sep 2003 14:27 pm, Matt Liotta wrote:
We did the write the DLL in C++, so you
On Monday, Sep 8, 2003, at 10:13 US/Pacific, Kevin Graeme wrote:
While it might not create new demand for CF, I think it would make
more CF
houses interested in the Linux version. We're switching to the Linux
version
soon, so I've been trying to keep an eye on what things we might not
be
Hmm, interesting point. Thanx. Do you have much invested in COM
integration that you might want to migrate to Linux? If so, how do you
envisage doing so? And how do you envisage the .NET integration helping
you on Linux?
I'd say the most common CF/COM integration probably involves talking to
Subject: Re: .NET integration without COM
any Java-based CFX tags can be recompiled in J# with often nothing more
than a change to the import statements.
Matt Liotta
~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t
For a CFX that was written in Java and then moved to J#, what is the
difference in performance (for CFMX version)?
We haven't done any testing, but anecdotal evidence suggests that there
is a noticeable performance improvement. I believe this is because the
.NET CLR has a better JIT
Congratulations Matt, even though you do swear at others from time-to-time ;o)
Kind Regards - Mike Brunt
Original Message ---
Montara Software yesterday announced a new product named Black Knight
that allows CFML developers to integrate .NET technology with their
Very cool...can you give some high level details in how it works?
(architecture, advantages over CF's current bridge approach etc)
Thanks!
Stace
-Original Message-
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: September 5, 2003 3:28 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: .NET integration without
Very cool...can you give some high level details in how it works?
(architecture, advantages over CF's current bridge approach etc)
As you know, to make use of a .NET-based object with any version of CF
requires wrapping that .NET object with COM. In addition with CFMX, you
have to use a
What we have done is re-implement the CFX API in .NET and then hosted
that inside of a CFX tag implemented as a DLL. This eliminates the need
for COM with ColdFusion prior to CFMX and eliminates the Java-COM
bridge with CFMX. Thus allowing you to develop a CFX tag in any .NET
language
Excellent. Is there going to be an evaluation version available?
We are currently conducting a private beta where interested parties can
evaluate the software. We have not decided whether there will be
evaluation version available when Black Knight ships. Quite simply, the
price point of
28 matches
Mail list logo
