On Thursday 20 Nov 2008, Aaron Rouse wrote:
We cannot take advantage of J2EE here because we store all the files on a
NETAPP and it is my understanding that JRun needs to have a drive letter
or something to that effect to get to the files when running in that
configuration. Security rules
Ok, I missed the out of the box part. Honestly, we run Stored
Procedures in Oracle with the Oracle driver without problems. Sure
sometimes you need to write a variable with SQL statements (seem
strange) to make it work within a SP, but all in all it always worked.
Just as a side note.
On
I know when I have tried using those drivers in the past with pre-existing
stored procedures that returned cursors that they did not function correctly
but I do not recall the issue since that was 1-2 years ago.
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 3:59 AM, Nitai @ SixSigns [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
Ok, I
To be honest I do not know 100% how it is setup because as I said we are not
allowed to get involved to that detail. It is my understanding it is the
difference of using \\netapp\blah v. F:\ the latter being something they
cannot setup due to needing an AD account that gives access to all
Tom you have surprised me there
//machinename/folder/filename
Can get access to the file, you dont need to map it to a drive letter, and I
think that is what he refers too.
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 8:52 PM, Tom Chiverton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Thursday 20 Nov 2008, Aaron Rouse
That doesnt make sense
When you use
\\machinename\folder\filenamefile://machinename/folder/filenameyou
will still need to be authenticated, are they saying that they prefer
to
use an account that is not in the AD? What is that all about? I would have
thought a group in the AD sperate to
Still sucks today :-(
On Nov 20, 2008, at 1:28 PM, Aaron Rouse wrote:
I know when I have tried using those drivers in the past with pre-
existing
stored procedures that returned cursors that they did not function
correctly
but I do not recall the issue since that was 1-2 years ago.
On
On Thursday 20 Nov 2008, Andrew Scott wrote:
//machinename/folder/filename
Can get access to the file, you dont need to map it to a drive letter, and
Yeah, I know that, and using that sort of path should be fine, if that's what
the sys. admins. want him to use.
--
Tom Chiverton
Helping to
I really do not remember the exact rule and reason, too much time has passed
since I tackled that argument with them. I do remember finding plenty of
evidence that actually supported their stance, which typically is not the
case. So whatever the issue is/was would be a valid issue in regards to
On Thursday 20 Nov 2008, Aaron Rouse wrote:
At this point it does not matter anyway, corporate has long since decided
that CF is not the avenue to continue down after having it as a standard
for 8 or so years.
That's a real shame :-(
OOI did you try engaging with Adobe (or a local reseller) to
This is just speculation on my part but I think someone high up got pissed
off when the audit of Adobe and Macromedia products on the network happened.
That audit happened when the two companies became one, so been awhile. Or
it could just be that the MS marketing folks do a better job because
- it's definitely hurting sales
I can't speak for you, but we've definitely lost a lot of CF sales because
of the cost of the server side. A lot of client want to host their own. If
the developers are losing sales I think that can reasonably translate into
Adobe loosing sales.
It is a
On Thursday 20 Nov 2008, Aaron Rouse wrote:
because they certainly sold someone high up on the idea that Sharepoint can
do
everything.
Doesn't look as cool as
http://www.adobe.com/devnet/dreamweaver/articles/getting_started_with_ice_eu_03.html
though :-)
--
Tom Chiverton
Helping to
Don't forget Thermo/Flash Catalyst when talking about amazing things done
with Eclipse...
Adam
On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 10:28 PM, Gerald Guido [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
I'm notoriously fickle though and one or two killers features will have
me
sold
I have seen some *Astounding* things done
The Datadirect Driver for Oracle supports returned ref cursors but not
encryption. The Oracle Thin Client Driver supports encryption but not
returned ref cursors. I seem to recall the older Data Direct drivers did
not support ref cursors but that was some time ago
From Adobe's standpoint is probably does not make sense to open
source or give their engine away for free when there is Railo and
OpenBD.
On Nov 19, 2008, at 9:37 PM, Robert Harrison wrote:
I love CF and would really like to see Adobe fix this business
model. It
would definitely be
On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 12:37 PM, Robert Harrison
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If anything they should charge $500 for an IDE and give away ColdFusion
for free
That is so much better of a business model. The main problem selling CF web
sites is the cost to deploy a site. Too much of the burden
While sales might be getting hurt right now due to the cost of the product.
The product must be selling well enough for them since they are clearly
continuing to invest in it via making new versions. My only complaint is
the need to run Enterprise for Oracle support out of the box when
- it's definitely hurting sales
I can't speak for you, but we've definitely lost a lot of CF sales because
of the cost of the server side. A lot of client want to host their own. If
the developers are losing sales I think that can reasonably translate into
Adobe loosing sales.
Robert B.
Aaron Rouse wrote:
My only complaint is the need to run Enterprise for Oracle support out of the
box
Then your complaint is probably with Oracle. It is my, possible very
wrong, understanding that a big factor in the price difference between
Standard and Enterprise is the license fee for
I prefer to remain ignorant and just complain about the cost difference of
the product I am telling people to buy. After all they do not care if it is
Oracle, Santa Clause or Adobe causing it to be significantly more money. If
that is the actual reason then seems a little silly since Oracle is
On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 1:06 PM, Robert Harrison [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
- it's definitely hurting sales
I can't speak for you, but we've definitely lost a lot of CF sales because
of the cost of the server side. A lot of client want to host their own. If
the developers are losing sales I
.
-Original Message-
From: Charlie Griefer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2008 8:50 PM
To: cf-talk
Subject: Re: IDE announced: IDE/Compiler Business Model
On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 12:37 PM, Robert Harrison
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If anything they should
On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 1:47 PM, Craig Dudley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That would be me :p
Persoanlly I don't care whether they charge me for the server or the IDE,
or perhaps even both as long as it's only roughly the same amount in total.
I'm in the rather unique position of having one
extra
features to make me part with my hard earned cash, I ssupect many other
cfeclipse users feel the same.
Craig.
-Original Message-
From: Charlie Griefer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2008 8:50 PM
To: cf-talk
Subject: Re: IDE announced: IDE/Compiler
On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 2:00 PM, Nick Giovanni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My point regarding cfeclipse is that it works really, REALLY well
CFeclipse has been buggy (for lack of a better term) for me.
I prefer the term eccentric :)
It's not without its bugs and quirks. But for the most part,
.
Craig.
-Original Message-
From: Charlie Griefer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2008 8:50 PM
To: cf-talk
Subject: Re: IDE announced: IDE/Compiler Business Model
On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 12:37 PM, Robert Harrison
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
They can get away with it because their (Oracle) thin client driver
sucks ;). The DataDirect version of the driver is far superior. It
could be argued, however, that a company that can put the funds out for
an Enterprise SQL server, it should be able to front funds for an
Enterprise web
In our particular case corporate pays or has been paying for the Oracle
license/deal that covers the entire company's use and most of that is not
for web applications. Then when someone wants to build a web based
application it is up to them to front the bill for the application and
whatever
though and one or two killers features will have me sold
-Original Message-
From: Charlie Griefer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2008 9:55 PM
To: cf-talk
Subject: Re: IDE announced: IDE/Compiler Business Model
On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 1:47 PM, Craig Dudley [EMAIL
You dont need the Enterprise product to run Oracle on it.
On Nov 19, 2008, at 9:51 PM, Aaron Rouse wrote:
While sales might be getting hurt right now due to the cost of the
product.
The product must be selling well enough for them since they are
clearly
continuing to invest in it via
Good Griefer said:
In that limited scenario, sure. But how many customers are making
purchases... which equates to revenue? By providing a free version, Adobe
loses that revenue and gains a few more customers (who are not providing any
additional revenue).
Or to paraphrase: Does it make
On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 2:29 PM, s. isaac dealey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Good Griefer said:
In that limited scenario, sure. But how many customers are making
purchases... which equates to revenue? By providing a free version,
Adobe
loses that revenue and gains a few more customers (who
Or to paraphrase: Does it make sense to change our business model to
give currently paying customers a freebie, in order to chase after
people who are currently unwilling to pay?
Indeed :)
The major gist here being that, while they know for a fact that the
current customers have
It's a DataDirect driver for Oracle, not an Oracle driver. So if
there's a huge price difference, it's DataDirect with whom the issue
lies.
Having said that, the commercial DataDirect driver costs more than all
of CF Enterprise, so I think we're getting a good deal. I also like
being able to run
I said out of the box and you do indeed need Enterprise if you want to do
it out of the box or at least to run stored procedures with any real
success. Been down the route of other avenues to access Oracle and each has
some gotchas.
On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 4:25 PM, Nitai @ SixSigns [EMAIL
We cannot take advantage of J2EE here because we store all the files on a
NETAPP and it is my understanding that JRun needs to have a drive letter or
something to that effect to get to the files when running in that
configuration. Security rules prevent us from making a file share that uses
an
I'm notoriously fickle though and one or two killers features will have me
sold
I have seen some *Astounding* things done with Eclipse. Aptana, Yoxos,
MyEclipse and Flex Builder come to mind right off the bat. Keep in mind that
this is Adobe's brain trust we are talking about. With that said, I
38 matches
Mail list logo
