Yes.
On Wednesday, Feb 5, 2003, at 16:55 US/Pacific, Stacy Young wrote:
> Is phase II out yet?
>
> -Stace
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Sean A Corfield [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2003 6:11 PM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: Re: Clar
Is phase II out yet?
-Stace
-Original Message-
From: Sean A Corfield [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2003 6:11 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Clarification - CFMX for J2EE w/ Remoting
On Wednesday, Feb 5, 2003, at 09:48 US/Pacific, Matt Liotta wrote:
> Sean, th
On Wednesday, Feb 5, 2003, at 09:48 US/Pacific, Matt Liotta wrote:
> Sean, there appears to be different versions of the flashgateway
> bundled
> with different distributions. CFMX Enterprise has a flashgateway that
> seems to be different from the one that comes with CFMX for J2EE (Phase
> 1), an
et to true).
Matt Liotta
President & CEO
Montara Software, Inc.
http://www.montarasoftware.com/
888-408-0900 x901
> -Original Message-
> From: Sean A Corfield [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2003 5:08 PM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: Re: Clarificatio
05, 2003 5:40 AM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: RE: Clarification - CFMX for J2EE w/ Remoting
>
> Sean you ARE da man! Thanks dude.
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Sean A Corfield [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2003 1:09 AM
> To: CF-
Sean you ARE da man! Thanks dude.
-Original Message-
From: Sean A Corfield [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2003 1:09 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Clarification - CFMX for J2EE w/ Remoting
On Tuesday, Feb 4, 2003, at 15:21 US/Pacific, Stacy Young wrote:
>
On Tuesday, Feb 4, 2003, at 15:21 US/Pacific, Stacy Young wrote:
> "It will not enable the EJB or Servlet Adapters."
>
> So if we're not hitting EJB's directly we'd be ok? (we'd be using
> client
> classes)
Correct: you can call Java Beans and "plain ol' Java classes" and they
can, in turn, act
On Tuesday, Feb 4, 2003, at 15:13 US/Pacific, Stacy Young wrote:
> I'm curious, what's the difference, in respect to security, between
> accessing Java objects thru the gateway in this scenario as opposed to
> using the Remoting for Java gateway?
The default security policy for JRun's Flash gatewa
alk
Subject: Re: Clarification - CFMX for J2EE w/ Remoting
On Monday, Feb 3, 2003, at 23:39 US/Pacific, Sean A Corfield wrote:
> On Monday, Feb 3, 2003, at 23:18 US/Pacific, Matt Liotta wrote:
>> You cannot have the CF Flash gateway and the Java Flash gateway
>> deployed in the
Sean A Corfield [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2003 5:08 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Clarification - CFMX for J2EE w/ Remoting
On Monday, Feb 3, 2003, at 23:39 US/Pacific, Sean A Corfield wrote:
> On Monday, Feb 3, 2003, at 23:18 US/Pacific, Matt Liotta wrote:
>> You
On Monday, Feb 3, 2003, at 23:39 US/Pacific, Sean A Corfield wrote:
> On Monday, Feb 3, 2003, at 23:18 US/Pacific, Matt Liotta wrote:
>> You cannot have the CF Flash gateway and the Java Flash gateway
>> deployed in the same context.
> Actually you can. But I don't believe it is documented (and may
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: RE: Clarification - CFMX for J2EE w/ Remoting
>
> I agree - it's not an ideal solution. That said, we live in the real
> world
> and if invoking some functionality as web services is the only
financially
> realistic alternative right now to p
> http://www.figleaf.com
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, 04 February, 2003 3:06 AM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: RE: Clarification - CFMX for J2EE w/ Remoting
>
>
> I don't really think it is a co
uary, 2003 3:06 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Clarification - CFMX for J2EE w/ Remoting
I don't really think it is a correct assumption that a single Flash
movie wouldn't want to call both CF and Java based services. There are
plenty of reasons why someone would mix CFML and Java on the
t;
> -Original Message-
> From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, 04 February, 2003 2:38 AM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: RE: Clarification - CFMX for J2EE w/ Remoting
>
>
> Passing WSDL URLs I think is a horrible idea. The overhead alone of
&g
> Actually you can. But I don't believe it is documented (and may not be
> within the terms of the license). However, assuming it doesn't violate
> the license agreement to do whatever is needed to enable this, I'll
> find out from the product team how you do it and report back.
>
See another one
trator
Fig Leaf Software
1400 16th St NW, # 220
Washington DC 20036
202.797.6570 (direct line)
http://www.figleaf.com
-Original Message-
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, 04 February, 2003 2:38 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Clarification - CFMX for J2EE w/ Rem
On Monday, Feb 3, 2003, at 23:18 US/Pacific, Matt Liotta wrote:
> You cannot have the CF Flash gateway and the Java Flash gateway
> deployed
> in the same context.
Actually you can. But I don't believe it is documented (and may not be
within the terms of the license). However, assuming it doesn'
/
888-408-0900 x901
> -Original Message-
> From: Simon Horwith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2003 2:30 AM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: RE: Clarification - CFMX for J2EE w/ Remoting
>
> technically, there is an xml entry (forgive me, I canno remem
ware
1400 16th St NW, # 220
Washington DC 20036
202.797.6570 (direct line)
http://www.figleaf.com
-Original Message-
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, 04 February, 2003 2:19 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Clarification - CFMX for J2EE w/ Remoting
You cannot h
You cannot have the CF Flash gateway and the Java Flash gateway deployed
in the same context. For many, this effectively means that you can't
call both CF and Java code from Flash unless you proxy the Java calls
through CF.
I have raised this issue many times with Macromedia and they still won't
g
The CFMX Feature guide says its available for all editions..
http://www.macromedia.com/software/coldfusion/whitepapers/pdf/ColdFusionMXFe
atureGrid_03.pdf
Joe
> -Original Message-
> From: Stacy Young [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2003 12:39 AM
> To: CF-Talk
> S
> Would it be accurate to say that in order to use Flash
> Remoting for both CFMX and Java applications on the
> same WebLogic server we'd need CFMX for J2EE and Flash
> Remoting for Java?
Yes, that's my understanding - if you want to use Flash Remoting within your
non-CFMX Java applications, I
I was under the impression that ColdFusion MX on every platform, supports
Flash Remoting. If this is the case, you will have all the gateway you need
just by having CFMX running on the server. Somebody correct me if I'm
misinformed about the CFMX for J2EE Flash Remoting out-of-the-box
implementat
24 matches
Mail list logo
