---
> From: Thomas Chiverton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2003 11:20 AM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
>
>
> On Thursday 04 Sep 2003 15:32 pm, Matt Liotta wrote:
> > > Right.
> > > But if your hosting provi
al Message-
> From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 3:56 PM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: Re: shared hosting security (was Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for
> us?)
>
>
> Read the rest of the thread leading up to it. If you still can't
: shared hosting security (was Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for
us?)
Read the rest of the thread leading up to it. If you still can't
understand why I was referring to security, then I will submit out of
shear frustration.
Sean wrote:
>
> Maybe I'm confused... but doesn't sandboxing cover the requirements adressed here?
Yes.
> Admittedly? if you're dealing with non enterprise licences you don't have
> sandboxes...
I bet that if you know a bit about Java you can write your own
.policy files and hack Sandbox Sec
This topic has been overloaded with comments, debates, etc. If you have
something to post of technical merit, PLEASE post it with a subject that
reflects the contents.
Thank you
p.s. debating semantics is NOT of technical merit for CF-Talk and should be
taken to CF-OT.
~~~
ember 2003 1:50 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
Better yet, why can't MM add some hosting-friendly options to the server global
settings so that they can address a need for a major customer segment?
Does a list of potential options exist? If we don't a
top of the To-Do list.
Kevin
-Original Message-
From: Thomas Chiverton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2003 8:20 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
I don't think they'd have any choice.
Of course, what they should do, is provide
Thomas Chiverton wrote:
> On Thursday 04 Sep 2003 15:32 pm, Matt Liotta wrote:
>
>>>Right.
>>>But if your hosting provider has wiped out cffile ... ?
>>
>>Then I am sure they won't let you install a CFX that does the same
>>thing.
>
>
> I don't think they'd have any choice.
> Of course, what the
On Thursday 04 Sep 2003 15:32 pm, Matt Liotta wrote:
> > Right.
> > But if your hosting provider has wiped out cffile ... ?
>
> Then I am sure they won't let you install a CFX that does the same
> thing.
I don't think they'd have any choice.
Of course, what they should do, is provide a cf_file whi
> Right.
> But if your hosting provider has wiped out cffile ... ?
>
Then I am sure they won't let you install a CFX that does the same
thing.
Matt Liotta
President & CEO
Montara Software, Inc.
http://www.MontaraSoftware.com
(888) 408-0900 x901
~~
On Thursday 04 Sep 2003 14:53 pm, Matt Liotta wrote:
> > I'm sure somewhere there must be a cf_file that works like cffile, but
> > uses
> > Java's i/o layer inside.
>
> CFMX compiles CFML into Java, so cffile in fact just uses java.io.File.
Right.
But if your hosting provider has wiped out cffil
> I'm sure somewhere there must be a cf_file that works like cffile, but
> uses
> Java's i/o layer inside.
>
CFMX compiles CFML into Java, so cffile in fact just uses java.io.File.
Matt Liotta
President & CEO
Montara Software, Inc.
http://www.MontaraSoftware.com
(888) 408-0900 x901
On Wednesday 03 Sep 2003 19:39 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> some of us dont know what that is matt.
> a lot of us dont know java & maybe dont have time to learn it.
> a lot of us need cffile. gawd knows i do:)
I'm sure somewhere there must be a cf_file that works like cffile, but uses
Java's i/
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> btw~ please read all my message as well
> i cant read it if it aint there
I think he did, and it showed the messages were there. You just
have to scroll down in your own message, you have quoted the
entire thread. Or use the archive.
Jochem
~
Original Message-
>>>>>> | From: Bryan Stevenson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] |
>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 11:07 AM
>>>>>> | To: CF-Talk
>>>>>> | Subject: Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
>>>>>> |
>&
tp://www.clickdoug.com
>>>>> Featuring Win2003 Enterprise, RedHat Linux, CFMX 6.1 and all
>>>>> databases. ISP rated:
>>>>> http://www.forta.com/cf/isp/isp.cfm?isp_id=772
>>>>> Suggested corporate Anti-virus policy:
>>>>
File system access is not required for there to be a vulnerability. You can
do things like grab sessions from other applications running on the same
server and modify the sessions. Anyone running an e-commerce app on a
shared host and using session variables is suceptible to tampering by
someone
porate Anti-virus policy:
>>>> http://www.dshield.org/antivirus.pdf
>>>> ==
>>>> If you are not satisfied with my service, my job isn't done!
>>>>
>>>> - Original Message -
>>>>
gt;>
>> Thanks,
>> -Brad
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 11:22 AM
>> To: CF-Talk
>> Subject: Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
>>
>>
>> Who n
t; -Brad
FB> -Original Message-
FB> From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
FB> Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 11:22 AM
FB> To: CF-Talk
FB> Subject: Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
FB> Who needs cffile or cfdirectory when you can use use java.io.File?
FB> -Ma
ECTED]
www.navtrak.net
office 410.548.2337
fax 410.860.2337
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 2:40 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
some of us dont know what that is matt.
a lot of us dont know
irus policy:
>>> http://www.dshield.org/antivirus.pdf
>>> ==
>>> If you are not satisfied with my service, my job isn't done!
>>>
>>> - Original Message -
>>> From: "Ryan Kime" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
7;t know Java :)
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 11:22 AM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
>
>
> Who needs cffile or cfdirectory when you can use use java.io.File?
>
gt; Matt,
>
> Where would one find documenation on who to use java.io.file in
> Coldfusion MX?
>
> Thanks,
> -Brad
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 11:22 AM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: Re: D
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 2:22 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
Who needs cffile or cfdirectory when you can use use java.io.File?
-Matt
On Wednesday, September 3, 2003, at 02:12 PM, Doug White wrote:
> Most Shared providers disa
vice, my job isn't done!
>>
>> - Original Message -
>> From: "Ryan Kime" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 11:29 AM
>> Subject: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats ne
Matt,
Where would one find documenation on who to use java.io.file in Coldfusion MX?
Thanks,
-Brad
-Original Message-
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 11:22 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
Who needs cffile or
People who don't know Java :)
-Original Message-
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 11:22 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
Who needs cffile or cfdirectory when you can use use java.io.File?
-Matt
On Wedn
w.dshield.org/antivirus.pdf
> ==
> If you are not satisfied with my service, my job isn't done!
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Ryan Kime" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003
lk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 11:53 AM
Subject: Re: CFObject in shared host? (Was: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? )
| An unscrupulous person could easily reformat a server's hard drive, kill
databases, plant viruses, and do all sorts of nasty thi
CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 11:29 AM
Subject: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
| >I used the word "free".they use the word "included"
|
| Semantics, I know, but here is the page I am referring to:
|
| http://www.uniserve.
If you remove CFMX's ability to change the classpath then you would
also remove my ability to change it. However, that is not the general
configuration used by hosting companies.
Matt Liotta
President & CEO
Montara Software, Inc.
http://www.MontaraSoftware.com
(888) 408-0900 x901
~
Matt Liotta wrote:
> CFMX is more than happy to give you permission to change the classpath
> it uses.
That is not my experience. If the CF MX base directory is
configured to be read-only, CF MX will not write there. But with
the current bug in the way sandboxes are inherited to lower
director
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> An unscrupulous person could easily reformat a server's hard drive, kill databases,
> plant viruses, and do all sorts of nasty things way before anybody at the hosting
> company would even have a clue about what's going on.
Not unless you are running CF as root/system
;CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 9:29 AM
Subject: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
> >I used the word "free".they use the word "included"
>
> Semantics, I know, but here is the page I am referring to:
>
> h
CFMX is more than happy to give you permission to change the classpath
it uses.
Matt Liotta
President & CEO
Montara Software, Inc.
http://www.MontaraSoftware.com
(888) 408-0900 x901
~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lis
Matt Liotta wrote:
> I have been able to successfully create a trojan that can be invoked
> only using Java reflection such as below and easily installed into a
> CFMX instance.
You mean as in uploaded a .jar and added it to the class path
etc? Wouldn't that require write permissions to the JVM
TECTED]>
Date: Wednesday, September 3, 2003 10:40 am
Subject: Re: CFObject in shared host? (Was: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? )
> Probably correct, but any shared hosting provider would probably
> immediatelyclose your account upon the appearance of code such as
> that - All of them d
I have been able to successfully create a trojan that can be invoked
only using Java reflection such as below and easily installed into a
CFMX instance.
-Matt
On Wednesday, September 3, 2003, at 12:35 PM, Jochem van Dieten wrote:
> Matt Liotta wrote:
>> Whether cfobject is enabled or not doesn
you are not satisfied with my service, my job isn't done!
- Original Message -
From: "Matt Liotta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 11:12 AM
Subject: Re: CFObject in shared host? (Was: RE: DWMX 2
Matt Liotta wrote:
> Whether cfobject is enabled or not doesn't affect the insecurity of a
> CFMX installation for shared hosting. For example...
>
>
> badThing = CreateObject("java", "a.BadThing");
> // is the same as...
> foo = "";
> clazz = foo.getClass();
> claz
Stevenson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 11:07 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
Well Ryan they are absolutely great and in 5 years I have never had a CF
related problem that wasn't fixed within 15 minutes of it being found (and I
can c
ing a security hazard?
>
> Cheers
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Ryan Kime [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 03 September 2003 16:36
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
>
>
> That's a $10 a month difference and they list out versions
==
If you are not satisfied with my service, my job isn't done!
- Original Message -
From: "Ryan Kime" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 10:13 AM
Subj
hart: http://www.blinex.com/products/charting
--
> -Original Message-
> From: Oliver Cookson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 11:40 AM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: CFObject in shared host? (Was: RE: DWMX
p
Founder & Director
www.cfug-vancouverisland.com
- Original Message -
From: "Ryan Kime" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 8:13 AM
Subject: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
> "There's no such th
1:50 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: CFObject in shared host? (Was: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new
for us? )
Dan Phillips (CFXHosting.com) wrote:
> We let customers use it on our advanced plans. We are running sandbox
> security to prevent any "accidents" ;-)
How does Sandbox Security
Dan Phillips (CFXHosting.com) wrote:
> We let customers use it on our advanced plans. We are running sandbox
> security to prevent any "accidents" ;-)
How does Sandbox Security protect you from accidents with COM
objects like the FSO?
Jochem
~
VPS -
http://www.cfxhosting.com/Plans/s_cfxadvancedVPS.cfm
-Original Message-
From: Oliver Cookson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 11:40 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: CFObject in shared host? (Was: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for
us? )
I know this has been covered before but has ther
rners.
Just want to make sure people ask the right questions when they look for
hosting. I look forward to seeing that BD hosting list.
-Ryan
-Original Message-
From: Massimo Foti [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 10:15 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: DWM
.
Just want to make sure people ask the right questions when they look for
hosting. I look forward to seeing that BD hosting list.
-Ryan
-Original Message-
From: Massimo Foti [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 10:15 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats
> "There's no such thing as a free lunch"
>
> I would be leery of *free* CF and SQL Server, both of those cost a pretty
> penny and are not easy to cover without passing some of the cost on to
> customers. It also makes me wonder why they use the term "FREE" and not
> "included" when describing the
land.com
- Original Message -
From: "Jim Davis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 6:54 PM
Subject: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
> For me, I wouldn't at the moment just because I'm very h
Jim Davis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 6:54 PM
Subject: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
> For me, I wouldn't at the moment just because I'm very happy where I am
> (CrystalTech).
>
&g
it greatly.
Jim Davis
> -Original Message-
> From: Mike Brunt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 11:28 AM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
>
> There is another question in the whole Bluedragon debate. How many of
u
003 12:19 PM
>> To: CF-Talk
>> Subject: BD hosting (was Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?)
>>
>>
>> I am not aware of anyone who is offering shared BlueDragon hosting at
>> this point. You may want to contact New Atlanta directly in that
>> regard. However,
tlanta.com
> -Original Message-
> From: Yves Arsenault [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 12:36 PM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: RE: BD hosting (was Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?)
>
>
> I thought that earlier this summer hosting partners
I knew I hadn't dreamed up the whole thing...
:-)
- Yves -
-Original Message-
From: Vince Bonfanti [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: September 2, 2003 1:38 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: BD hosting (was Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?)
Yes, we're working with several hosting co
ICQ #117650823
-Original Message-
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: September 2, 2003 1:19 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: BD hosting (was Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?)
I am not aware of anyone who is offering shared BlueDragon hosting at
this point. You may want to contact
-Original Message-
> From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 12:19 PM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: BD hosting (was Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?)
>
>
> I am not aware of anyone who is offering shared BlueDragon hosting at
> th
I am not aware of anyone who is offering shared BlueDragon hosting at
this point. You may want to contact New Atlanta directly in that
regard. However, I am sure that many hosting companies would step up to
the plate if the need exists. I wonder if the free version of
BlueDragon could be used b
Do such places exist?
-Original Message-
From: Mike Brunt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 8:28 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
There is another question in the whole Bluedragon debate. How many of us
would move our site(s) to a
-
From: Jim Davis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 7:56 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
> -Original Message-
> From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 2:16 AM
> To: CF-Talk
> Su
> -Original Message-
> From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 2:16 AM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
>
> > If your clients are small enough where the cost of CF is prohibitive
it
> >
Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 12:56 AM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
>
> Shared hosting doesn't help cost issues when the application is
> destined for an Intranet since by definition the application needs to
; Kind Regards - Mike Brunt
> Webapper Services LLC
> Web Site http://www.webapper.com
> Blog http://www.webapper.net
>
> Webapper
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Raymond Camden [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, September 01, 2003 9:02 PM
> To: CF-Talk
Mike Brunt
Webapper Services LLC
Web Site http://www.webapper.com
Blog http://www.webapper.net
Webapper
-Original Message-
From: Raymond Camden [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, September 01, 2003 9:02 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
I don't need to st
.macromedia.com/go/teammacromedia)
>
> Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Blog : www.camdenfamily.com/morpheus/blog
> Yahoo IM : morpheus
>
> "My ally is the Force, and a powerful ally it is." - Yoda
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Matt Blatchley [mailto:[EMA
03 8:32 AM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
>
>
> Well, since I can't afford anything MM produces legally, I'm
> going to have to get BlueDragon next time I get paid. MM
> just lost
By that logic, you must be running CFMX on top of WebSphere, running on
top of an S/390.
In the J2EE world there are many vendors all with different offerings
and different prices. Certainly you wouldn't avoid using JRun just
because it is much cheaper than WebSphere or WebLogic. We CFML
devel
kinda like buying a kia:)
it tries to be the real thing but its not, will always be a step behind.
i dont even do serious programming but no thanks, i'll take the real deal.
you guys are making $100 + an hour, you can fit it in.
Its up too you to show the client where it saves them money so they d
> If your clients are small enough where the cost of CF is prohibitive it
> may be likely that the cost of managing an Intranet is also prohibitive
> (although they may be doing it anyway and have never done a cost
> analysis).
>
I'll agree with that, but certainly the use of certain software e.g.
e-
> From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 12:56 AM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
>
> Shared hosting doesn't help cost issues when the application is
> destined for an Intranet since by definition
nd Regards - Mike Brunt
> Webapper Services LLC
> Web Site http://www.webapper.com
> Blog http://www.webapper.net
>
> Webapper
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Raymond Camden [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, September 01, 2003 9:02 PM
> To: CF-Talk
>
D]
Sent: Monday, September 01, 2003 8:49 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
On Thursday 28 Aug 2003 21:00 pm, Matt Blatchley wrote:
> Blue Dragonquite impressed. How do they get away with that?
The same way the Mono folks 'get away' with writing their own .ne
On Thursday 28 Aug 2003 21:00 pm, Matt Blatchley wrote:
> Blue Dragonquite impressed. How do they get away with that?
The same way the Mono folks 'get away' with writing their own .net compiler.
--
Tom Chiverton (sorry 'bout sig.)
Advanced ColdFusion Programmer
Tel: +44(0)1749 834997
email:
an't
> use DW and photoshop. I know I could use wine but it's not the same to me.
>
> Ben
> - Original Message -
> From: "Joshua Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Thursday, August 2
I hope my last response cleared up what I was trying to say. If not,
please email me off list and I'd be happy clarify my points more
without boring the list.
-Matt
On Friday, August 29, 2003, at 12:34 PM, Jochem van Dieten wrote:
> Matt Liotta wrote:
>
>> I'm not sure why you are suggesting t
Matt Liotta wrote:
> I'm not sure why you are suggesting that my position is that all
> management and monitoring of a networking device need be done through
> an HTTP interface.
I am not suggesting that that is your position. I am quoting you
on your position that "(..) networking equipment (
I'm not sure why you are suggesting that my position is that all
management and monitoring of a networking device need be done through
an HTTP interface. My point in case it wasn't clear is most networking
equipment now includes a web interface for management purposes. I made
this only to furth
Matt Liotta wrote:
>>Maybe SOHO and consumer devices are manged through a web
>>interface, but SNMP and telnet/SSH reigns supreme in the
>>equipment that has more options as a digital watch.
>>
>
> I'm not talking about SOHO and consumer devices although they certainly
> have web interfaces. I a
> Maybe SOHO and consumer devices are manged through a web
> interface, but SNMP and telnet/SSH reigns supreme in the
> equipment that has more options as a digital watch.
>
I'm not talking about SOHO and consumer devices although they certainly
have web interfaces. I am talking about enterprise
sday, August 28, 2003 3:23 PM
Subject: Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
> > I would think one reason is the cost of the CFServer. Every person I've
> > talked to that is outside of the CF development world tells me the
reason
> > they never got into ColdFusion or don'
Matt Liotta wrote:
>>More likely SNMP or telnet/SSH. Unless you mean small SOHO and
>>consumer devices.
>
> I'm not saying networking companies are doing away with SNMP or other
> interfaces, but most are building or planning on building web
> interfaces for the products.
You were saying" "(..
gt;
> Tim
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 3:51 PM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
>
>
>> Also when talking about how much of the market share CF has, you have
>
> More likely SNMP or telnet/SSH. Unless you mean small SOHO and
> consumer devices.
>
I'm not saying networking companies are doing away with SNMP or other
interfaces, but most are building or planning on building web
interfaces for the products. JRun has some nice OEM agreements with
networkin
> Hmm, I'd never noticed the cut'n'paste issue until just now. Guess I
> rely much more on the LiveDocs version and the local HTML version (the
> latter is particularly nice in CFMX 6.1!).
I use LiveDocs most of the times too.
> > Since you are playing with Mach II, get a copy of the DTD for the
On Thursday, Aug 28, 2003, at 15:15 US/Pacific, Massimo, Tiziana e
Federica wrote:
>> Hmm, but DWMX includes help/reference material for CF,
> DWMX's reference panel is a joke :-)
> It seems designed for a PDA, it's hard to read and you can't copy/past
> from
> it.
Hmm, I'd never noticed the cut
issues with DWMX that I'm particularly
frustrated with, especially because of their simplicity to implement.
/shrug
- Calvin
- Original Message -
From: "Sean A Corfield" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, Augu
> Come on Matt you supposed to be logic man. That is not a
> linear statement. It would depend on the number of installs,
> and how large the sector it is art of grows. It could just
> have had such a large base that it would never need another
> copy sold in order to retain a majority, even if
> What you've described with the multi-tier project does make sense.
> However, does DWMX understand VS.NET projects?
No
> How about source control?
It has VSS integration, unfortunately is still missing CVS integration :-(((
> Does DWMX properly render ASP.NET custom controls?
I am not sure
> > CFS is far superior with it's
> > help/reference system alone (language specific), not to mention the
> > color
> > coding (language specific), and the toolbar (language specific), and so
> > forth.
>
> Hmm, but DWMX includes help/reference material for CF,
DWMX's reference panel is a joke :-)
> > ... I don't really think that MM intends Dreamweaver to
> > be a replacement for VS.NET, though...
>
> Then MM should market it as such.
To a certain degree, I think they do, although it's a pretty subtle message
to attempt to convey through marketing.
> What you've described with the multi
> Does it work with CFMX at all?
No, it doesn't work with CFMX.
and would probably
> require
> substantial changes to CFMX's compiler to support the sort of
> single-step / step-in / step-out / breakpoint / watch point stuff
> that
> some languages boast. Part of the problem when writing
> > Many hardware devices make use of web application servers
> > for various reasons. The best example I can give is networking
> > equipment, which is now generally managed via a web interface
> > provided by the device.
>
> More likely SNMP or telnet/SSH. Unless you mean small SOHO and
> co
: Haggerty, Mike [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 3:57 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
I happen to know of a fully funded agency with 2+ employees that is
moving to exclusive use of CF for its Intranet applications.
Would that be evidence?
browser
I could go on and on.
Kevin
-Original Message-
From: Bryan Stevenson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 1:47 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
Hmmm...OK..so why even build a web appwhy not build a client/server app?
I guess
significant,
however I would even know where to look for actual hard figures.
Mental Masturbation at it's best :)
Tim
-Original Message-
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 4:18 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
Isn'
> While I probably wouldn't have used the phrase "steaming pile of
> crap", I
> agree that it's not nearly as good for the single task of writing
> ASP.NETapplications as VS.NET. I don't really think that MM
> intends Dreamweaver to
> be a replacement for VS.NET, though. There's no facility to w
as
large a majority.
Tim
-Original Message-
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 3:51 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
> Also when talking about how much of the market share CF has, you have
> to
> look at the
1 - 100 of 257 matches
Mail list logo
