*** Warning, long OD (original dennish) post. ***
On 8/8/06, Dave Watts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Well, you don't have to buy anything from Adobe to produce
> > and deploy Flex based apps, since the SDK is free of
> > charge... but i think Adobe plans to make some money off that
> > product
k
together, shoot me an email off-list and I'll put you in touch with the
right people here at New Atlanta.
Josh
-Original Message-
From: Rick Faircloth [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, August 05, 2006 8:42 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: what if the next CF...
I've been rea
rver resources is significantly less when deploying BlueDragon
than you're finding them to be when deploying CFMX.
Josh
-Original Message-
From: Tanguy Rademakers [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, August 07, 2006 11:59 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: what if the next CF...
>You do
2006 1:59 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: what if the next CF...
You can - I am sure there is tool for this, I cannot remember the name
(cfanywhere?)
"This e-mail is from Reed Exhibitions (Oriel House, 26 The Quadrant,
Richmond, Surrey, TW9 1DL, United Kingdom), a division of Reed Business,
R
> Well, you don't have to buy anything from Adobe to produce
> and deploy Flex based apps, since the SDK is free of
> charge... but i think Adobe plans to make some money off that
> product ;)
I think the value proposition there is quite different. There is no required
server-side component for
Well, you don't have to buy anything from Adobe to produce and deploy
Flex based apps, since the SDK is free of charge... but i think Adobe
plans to make some money off that product ;)
Good point. When Ben Forta was at my local user group giving a Flex 2
presentation, I pointedly asked him how
>I don't see how Adobe would make any money, since no one would have to buy
>their product to use it. If I could deploy a license-free EAR from my free
>developers' edition of CF, I wouldn't need to buy anything at all. CF 7
>already includes Jasper Reports, also.
Well, you don't have to buy anyth
On 8/8/06, Tom Chiverton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Tuesday 08 August 2006 03:30, Dave Watts wrote:
> > I don't see how Adobe would make any money, since no one would have to
> buy
> > their product to use it. If I could deploy a license-free EAR from my
> free
> > developers' edition of CF,
On Tuesday 08 August 2006 03:30, Dave Watts wrote:
> I don't see how Adobe would make any money, since no one would have to buy
> their product to use it. If I could deploy a license-free EAR from my free
> developers' edition of CF, I wouldn't need to buy anything at all.
I'm sure corporates wou
> And to touch on a post someone else made to the thread: It
> would have to be a license free EAR or WAR that gets
> "exported"; needing licenses for these apps defeats the idea
> that I think was key to that part... the "free" & EOD (Ease
> Of Deployment ;)... Maybe competition/extension with
On 8/7/06, Tanguy Rademakers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> CF
without a server would be fairly useless for web sites / services,
> no ?
My bad for not making it more clear - you would still deploy your cf apps in
a J2EE server just like you do today.
--
It was clear over hear. Er. Here, even. I mea
> 1) In Weblogic, CF has to be deployed as an exploded war /
> ear (as i recall, this has something to do with needing read
> / write access to the license.properties file). This means
> that the ear or war has to be uploaded to each machine in the
> cluster, exploded, deployed from the weblogi
> CF without a server would be fairly useless for web sites / services,
> no ?
My bad for not making it more clear - you would still deploy your cf apps in a
J2EE server just like you do today.
/t
~|
Introducing the Fusion Aut
>You do realize this is possible now, right? If you install CFMX 7
>using the Multiserver installation option on, say, your laptop, you
>can write your application, create an EAR/WAR which contains the
>entire CF runtime, and give it to some J2EE app server admin and tell
>him to deploy it. Of cour
On Saturday 05 August 2006 19:42, Adrian Moreno wrote:
> CF 4.5 can't do XML. It can do WDDX, but that's not what the vendor is
> providing.
In this case, building a one-off parser treating the XML as a string would be
a fairly quick route.
--
Tom Chiverton
On Friday 04 August 2006 21:34, RADEMAKERS Tanguy wrote:
> This is the question: what if you turned cf into TWO products: an SDK /
> IDE combo that included at least the cfml parser and maybe even the
> compiler, and a server component that gave you access to more
> "enterprisey" options?
CF witho
Ah, CF 1.0...I never knew ye...(I started with 4.5)
Rick
-Original Message-
From: Peter Tilbrook [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, August 06, 2006 12:58 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: what if the next CF...
Pre Cold Fusion 1.0 (two words back then) now that REALLY takes me back
Pre Cold Fusion 1.0 (two words back then) now that REALLY takes me back!
~|
Introducing the Fusion Authority Quarterly Update. 80 pages of hard-hitting,
up-to-date ColdFusion information by your peers, delivered to your door four
No problem, Mingo...I took your comments just as you intended.
No offense taken at all. :o)
Rick
-Original Message-
From: Mingo Hagen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, August 05, 2006 8:45 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: what if the next CF...
Hey Rick, I guess I shouldn'
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Saturday, August 05, 2006 1:28 PM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: Re: what if the next CF...
>
> It's slower (when stuff is not yet compiled), COM doesn't work the same,
> uhm, you know, all kinds of good stuff! ;)
>
> Mingo.
>
>
&g
to spend $1000 today on
a new Canon Digital Camera and keep using 4.5.
Rick
-Original Message-
From: Dave Watts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, August 05, 2006 5:57 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: what if the next CF...
> Guess I'm just stuck in the past... FWIW, tell me
hing I need and upgrading would be a waste
of $1300...
(And, based on Neil's comments, I don't want to slow down any
pending COM operations unnecessarily. :oP
Rick
-Original Message-
From: Adrian Moreno [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, August 05, 2006 2:42 PM
To: CF-Talk
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, August 05, 2006 1:36 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: what if the next CF...
COM is slower on 4.5? No way, and in some cases 4.5/5 is faster than MX code
bases.
Rick does has a point, when it is all rendered, it's just HTML! So at that
stage there is n
n't need and another reason not to
spend another $1300 and toss 4.5 in the "Recycle Bin"...
-Original Message-
From: Mingo Hagen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, August 05, 2006 1:28 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: what if the next CF...
It's slower (when stuff is
> Guess I'm just stuck in the past... FWIW, tell me one thing
> that is dramatically different on the "user end" of a website
> experience that can be done with CF7 that can't with CF 4.5
> (anything not native to CF7 doesn't count)
>
> Not throwing out a challenge, but genuinely wanting to kn
Let's say you have a travel website. *waits*
Ok.
Your end user expects to see rates for multiple airlines which you have
available in your database. Your end user also expects to see any bargain rates
available, but your airline vendors don't give you that information. They have
a contract wi
I ment the other way around, 6+ is slower then 5-.
Robertson-Ravo, Neil (RX) wrote:
> COM is slower on 4.5? No way, and in some cases 4.5/5 is faster than MX code
> bases.
~|
Introducing the Fusion Authority Quarterly Update. 8
k
Sent: Sat Aug 05 18:28:02 2006
Subject: Re: what if the next CF...
It's slower (when stuff is not yet compiled), COM doesn't work the same,
uhm, you know, all kinds of good stuff! ;)
Mingo.
Rick Faircloth wrote:
> FWIW, tell me one thing that is dramatically different on
It's slower (when stuff is not yet compiled), COM doesn't work the same,
uhm, you know, all kinds of good stuff! ;)
Mingo.
Rick Faircloth wrote:
> FWIW, tell me one thing that is dramatically different on the "user end" of a
> website experience that can be done with CF7 that can't with CF 4.5
.. www.pcaonline.com
Have you seen anything on their site that would make you think you'd have
to buy CF server?
Rick
-Original Message-
From: Robertson-Ravo, Neil (RX)
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, August 05, 2006 12:40 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: what if the next CF...
edexpo.com
-Original Message-
From: Rick Faircloth
To: CF-Talk
Sent: Sat Aug 05 13:42:04 2006
Subject: RE: what if the next CF...
I've been reading about Coral Web Builder (again) after your email.
It sounds intriguing...question...does Coral Web Builder take the place
of Cold F
lto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, August 04, 2006 6:56 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: what if the next CF...
It would be cool if you could deploy apps on cd.
Anyone on here use Coral Web Builder? You can build coldfusion applications
and deploy them on a auto run cd as one of the choices...
http://ww
--Original Message-
From: Casey Dougall
To: CF-Talk
Sent: Fri Aug 04 23:56:06 2006
Subject: Re: what if the next CF...
It would be cool if you could deploy apps on cd.
Anyone on here use Coral Web Builder? You can build coldfusion applications
and deploy them on a auto run cd as one of the choice
It would be cool if you could deploy apps on cd.
Anyone on here use Coral Web Builder? You can build coldfusion applications
and deploy them on a auto run cd as one of the choices...
http://www.pcaonline.com/prod/index.cfm?loc=coral
~~
> Basically, what if they pulled a Flex on CF?
Well, I think the value proposition is far different for CF than it is for
Flex. It never made much sense for Flex to be a server-side product
primarily, since Flex was really just another way to generate SWFs. CF, on
the other hand, is all server-si
Hello,
Apologies in advance for the long and OT post. Don't worry, this isn't
yet another cf wish list (or is it?). This really is long and rambling,
so you will need coffee, and you might not want to read this at your
desk... maybe print it and take it home for the weekend?
Unless you've been li
36 matches
Mail list logo
