Home of the ColdFusion Community
|
Mailing Lists
|
Home /
Groups /
ColdFusion Talk (CF-Talk)
Linking ColdFusion and Flash
Author: Christian Cantrell
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:20031#101433
On Thursday, December 26, 2002, at 04:23 PM, Jas
> There has been many mentions also of a cftree like in flash - they
> exist. search on flash components. Powerful little buggers. I'll have
> to
> gather urls of other flash components like some custom datagrid
> components. Dispells the whole theory that flash ( previously
> mentioned)
> is not as good as cf in displaying alrge record sets.
Are you saying that there is a cftree implementation, or that there are
Flash components that build tree data structures like the cftree tag?
I have seen (and often used) the Tree component that is included in the
second Flash UI Components Set, but I have not seen a cftree custom tag
that dynamically generates Flash. If it exists, I would certainly like
to try it out.
Also, what data grid components have you found that efficiently handle
very large data sets? And what kinds of numbers are we talking about?
I will certainly take your word on this as I have typically avoided
bringing large numbers of records into Flash and opted for CF/HTML
solutions instead.
Christian
Author: Matt Robertson
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:20031#101406
<snip>
>if I had a way quickly and easy generate and configure
>the pieces of Flash I needed, I would rather use a CF tag
</snip>
Cowabunga, dude.
<cfexpandocontracto
MenuName="bluesky"
Width="175"
Height="100%"
FromLeft="10px"
FromTop="10px"
Orientation="vertical"
Query="myQuery"
SortIndentField="myQuery.SortLevel"
MouseOffBG="ffffff"
MouseOnBG="000000"
MouseOnFG="000000"
MouseOnBG="ffffff"
CurrPageFG="000000"
CurrPageBG="e9e9e9"
ArrowColor="dc143c"
Font="Tahoma,Helvetica"
FontSize="8px"
BorderWidth="2px"
BorderColor="8a2be2"
MouseOverSound="beep"
SelectedSound="boop">
Put this into CF server and not a dev environment ( i.e. the swf is made by CF)
and you've got yourself a compelling upgrade indeed. Put it into Dreamweaver and
I'll probably pass.
---------------------------------------
Matt Robertson, MSB Designs, Inc.
http://mysecretbase.com - Retail
http://foohbar.org - ColdFusion Tools
---------------------------------------
Reply-To: cf-talk@houseoffusion.com
date: Thu, 26 Dec 2002 10:53:50
-0500
Author: Jason Miller
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:20031#101371
Personally - being a serious graphics person and a developer... And
using flash since it was future splash way back when - I have seen alot
of changes. Each change making the tool a much more serious development
and animation tool than the last.
I am not quite sure a timeline is an "awful" way to have to program
applications. It also doesn't have to be used as a "timeline". Meaning -
effortlessly I can have the movie start at one frame, jump to any others
I want. User labels not frames and it simply becomes an environment.
Easy way to have shared objects across multiple frames while having the
ability to on top of that control dynamic items.
For most people very proficient with flash - they sort of ignore the
timeline. Meaning - they use it to create their animations and MC's -
but then - on _root. - there is 1 frame - with functions and objects and
such.
So I see it as the opposite. Amazing flexibility - not unneccessary. It
is in the way it is used.
And Actionscript has come a long ways - Yes a big learnign curve- but I
am not quite sure we will ever see that change into another language. It
is possible.. us using Director has thought director may adopt AS - but
it hasn't - it's stuck with it's Lingo - things like - "go to the
movie(the MoviePath && "/temp") "
Also - FLash has such a bad name for those stupid evil - intros. ( proud
to say I convinced every client to not do it)..... But Flash 5 started
dispersing that poor usage of flash standard.
There has been many mentions also of a cftree like in flash - they
exist. search on flash components. Powerful little buggers. I'll have to
gather urls of other flash components like some custom datagrid
components. Dispells the whole theory that flash ( previously mentioned)
is not as good as cf in displaying alrge record sets.
it's all changing. and their are components developed to prove it. What
everyone does seem to forget - is that flash does need colfusion whether
you are using a flash sendandload or builign cfc;s for flash to call on.
It's not a matter of ONLY building in flash vs flash + back ends. It's
the point of using the tools needed, to do the specific task, look good-
make it scalable and fast all at the same time. For those interested-
should really pick up AS and take the learning curve.
just my 02.
jay miller
Rick Faircloth wrote:
Flash needs to undergo some serious UI change to accomodate
app development as opposed to animation/graphics development.
The current UI is similar to what I use everyday for video production.
For producing animated graphics for video, the timeline is necessary.
For producing animated graphics in Flash, the timeline is necessary.
But for application development where developers just need the
graphical interface (minus all the nice, but generally unnecessary
and undesirable animation eye-candy), the timeline is an awful way
to have to program applications. The only reason it's in use now
is that it was developed as an animation UI.
On other forums, several of us have discussed two Flash UI's.
Or Flash "modes"...one for developers who just want to develop apps,
but don't want to work with animation, and another for designers/
animators who want to develop high-end animation work.
Right now it's trying to be all things to all people and that's not
working.
While we're on the subject, why can't Flash do away with ActiveScript
and incorporate CFML somehow? I don't know that much about the use
of the languages, and why that wouldn't be possible, but I do know that
I'd probably be using Flash MX Remoting right now if it weren't for the
fact
that I've got to learn a whole new language to make it work. With no
javascript
background, that's more of a hill than I want to climb right now, just
to
get
web apps that work more like software...
MM has been asking for input from "Flash Newbies" about how Flash
could change the program...right now it's in the middle of a "tween."
Rick
Rick Faircloth,
Prism Productions
<mailto:matt@mysecretbase.com> ]
Sent: Tuesday, December 24, 2002 11:43 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Linking CF and Flash
Jochem brings up a good point in that cfform's validation features are,
IMHO, worthless. Whatever it is that replaces cfform, if anything,
needs significant improvement on that score.
I think that its time for CF developers to start looking at using Flash
for components in sites. Due to bandwidth and other considerations
we're not ready for entirely Flash-driven sites for the general
marketplace, but in my opinion developers should begin exploring - and
responsibly using - the technology. Macromedia can promote developer
acceptance of Flash in giant steps by integrating Flash components into
CF. Forget about standards if you like... This is about money, control
and and mindshare. If Macromedia wants these things, this is the way to
go. Personally I also think this would be good for the sites we build.
I've often been a vocal opponent of Flash as a design tool, but it has
its place and - in the U.S. market at least - borders on ubiquity. I'll
vigorously grant that it was evil in 2000. But I can't justify that
argument as we approach 2003.
I have one client using Flash for *primary* navigation on five sites. I
screamed bloody murder about that but was overruled. Six months of
stats show they're doing extremely well, with almost zero turnaways due
to lack of Flash (and thanks to careful hoarding of bandwidth). It can
be done so long as you point a gun (figuratively, of course :)) at the
head of the designer.
About those sites - one thing I absolutely can't stand is that I have to
go to that designer for menu system changes (read: fixing his screwups).
CF sells in part as a full-featured solution. Give CF'ers the ability
to use and produce Flash in at least limited ways and you'll grow your
Flash developer base one heck of a lot more quickly.
Would I use CFTree if it were Flash? Maybe. Depends on whether it
works. I'll never use it as a java applet, as while it and CFGrid offer
wonderful features, experience proves neither can be relied upon to work
on a given browser at a given desk. Flash can solve that. Improved
appearance options can give it a broader range of uses. Same goes for
everything else, methinks.
Happy holidays to all,
--Matt Robertson--
MSB Designs, Inc.
http://mysecretbase.com <http://mysecretbase.com>
<mailto:cantrell@macromedia.com> ]
Sent: Monday, December 23, 2002 9:18 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Linking CF and Flash
I like the idea, too. Anyone want to add anything? How many people
use the cfform tag now, and how many more people would use it if it
worked in the manner described below? And how else would you want it
to behave?
Would people be more interested in using the cftree tag if it generated
Flash rather than Java?
Just trying to gather a sample.
Christian
On Monday, December 23, 2002, at 05:29 PM, Matt Robertson wrote:
Christian wrote,
Do you mean something like using a cfform tag to generate Flash-based
forms?
You know, the more I mull this over the more I really like the idea.
Try this on for size: A new suite of form input tags (cfflashinput?)
that has the parms it does now. Add to it color and sizing options.
Then, if something needs to be compiled from a fla to an swf, give the
limited ability to do this in CF Server. Whatever you do don't put
this limited-runtime 'compiler' into Dreamweaver as many don't use it,
and plus, if I'm using something like Terminal Server to do emergency
repairs I have to have access to the form generation tools.
CF would store the swf's in a specified folder on the site's web path
so we don't get into the mapping issues that dog so many cfgrid users;
especially on shared servers.
Obviously this isn't something that would happen tomorrow. Just a
thought...
--Matt Robertson--
MSB Designs, Inc.
http://mysecretbase.com <http://mysecretbase.com>
Author: Christian Cantrell
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:20031#101353
----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----
You can actually do this already to some extent. One way:
<object ...>
<param name="movie" value="menu.swf" />
<param name="flashvars" value="name1=value1&name2=value2" />
</object>
This is pretty clunky, as you can imagine, but the better way to do it
is to have your Flash movie load some XML (which might look just like
the menu structure you wrote above) from the server and build itself
dynamically that way. So the only difference ends up being that the
menu description is in its own file on the server rather than being
integrated into your CF page.
Christian
Author: Christian Cantrell
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:20031#101351
You make an important point here regarding the use of Flash for
components of sites. While in theory, developing entire
sites/applications in Flash is a compelling idea, in practice, I think
it is currently more practical to develop pieces of your site in Flash
with the majority of the work being done in ColdFusion (though I do
believe that Flash apps with CF back-ends will gain momentum in the
future). There are components of websites that Flash does really well
(navigation, communication, interactive presentations), and there are
components that ColdFusion/HTML do better (presentation of large record
sets, the ability to be indexed by search engines, liquid layout, etc.).
As you point out, Matt, I think integrating Flash components into CF
could be a good way to not just introduce this concept to CF
developers, but to also give them powerful new functionality. For
instance, I am fairly proficient in Flash, however if I had a way
quickly and easy generate and configure the pieces of Flash I needed, I
would rather use a CF tag than do it by hand. As a developer, I think
I feel the way most others do: if the generated Flash was buggy,
bloated and could not be made to match the look and feel of the site I
was working on, I would stay away form it; if it worked as expected,
loaded quickly and integrated well, I can't think of a good reason not
to use it in appropriate circumstances.
Christian
For instance, where you currently use DHTML or perhaps applets,
consider using Flash.
On Tuesday, December 24, 2002, at 11:42 AM, Matt Robertson wrote:
----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----
Author: Alexandro Colorado
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:20031#101337
I checked out the book of integration of CFMX with Flash MX, is
Pretty good. But a lil bit to few examples. You cant really
learn everything there is to within CF and Flash. Of course
integration happens on the code and the component sections. The
rest is just general features of Flash MX, Flash Comm and Flash
remoting.
---- On Thu, 26 Dec 2002, Matt Robertson
(matt@mysecretbase.com) wrote:
> Jochem wrote:
> >(maybe that is because I think design is overrated anyway
>
> Unfortunately design is very highly rated with many of the
people who fund projects. If Flash helps
> me add form to function thats a valuable aid to the sale.
>
> >I think it is pretty useless to make just a form here and a
> >form there in Flash. Either integrate totally, or don't use
it.
>
> While I may see your point from a developers perspective,
that is a disaster from the marketing side,
> both for me and MM. The implications for bandwidth and
search engines alone -- ignoring a host of
> others -- make pure Flash apps workable only in niches. I'd
rather start working with it now, and
> I'd prefer for Macromedia to make it as easy as possible for
me to do it. Half the reason I started
> using CF was because of the shallow learning curve. Give me
one of those for Flash app tools that
> are integrated into CF. Flash forms, Complex heirarchical
Flash menus (not just trees) etc.
>
> my .02
>
> --Matt--
>
Author: Matt Robertson
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:20031#101336
Jochem wrote:
>(maybe that is because I think design is overrated anyway
Unfortunately design is very highly rated with many of the people who fund
projects. If Flash helps me add form to function thats a valuable aid to the
sale.
>I think it is pretty useless to make just a form here and a
>form there in Flash. Either integrate totally, or don't use it.
While I may see your point from a developers perspective, that is a disaster from
the marketing side, both for me and MM. The implications for bandwidth and
search engines alone -- ignoring a host of others -- make pure Flash apps
workable only in niches. I'd rather start working with it now, and I'd prefer
for Macromedia to make it as easy as possible for me to do it. Half the reason I
started using CF was because of the shallow learning curve. Give me one of those
for Flash app tools that are integrated into CF. Flash forms, Complex
heirarchical Flash menus (not just trees) etc.
my .02
--Matt--
Author: Matt Robertson
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:20031#101333
This is a great idea that doesn't necessarily have to take this precise form
(future xhtml2 compatibility on 'older' browsers). My own experience
notwithstanding (forced in but got away with it), the concept of a fallback for a
Flash menu is critical if you're going to rely on it for primary nav. Its a
giant leap of faith (or stupidity) to go without this.
---------------------------------------
Matt Robertson, MSB Designs, Inc.
http://mysecretbase.com - Retail
http://foohbar.org - ColdFusion Tools
---------------------------------------
Author: Jochem van Dieten
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:20031#101330
Jochem van Dieten wrote:
----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----
This should be object instead of cfobject. Flash runs on the client :-)
Jochem
Author: Matthew Walker
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:20031#101329
> What would make more sense, IMO, would be to shift CFscript more toward
> ECMA Standard JavaScript. Then folks only have to learn one language.
I couldn't count the number of times I've written something like for ( i = 0
; i lt 10 ; i++ ) in cfscript, then stared at it, trying to imagine what was
wrong. :-(
Author: Rick Faircloth
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:20031#101324
Therein lies the biggest hurdle for me, an independent developer
who has to make money continuously since I have no salary; the
complication involved with moving from dynamic apps based on
a browser interface and CFML to Flash Remoting.
Right now I simply have to know HTML and CFML. And 99% of the
generation of my HTML "shell" code is generated for me. I handcode
my CFML. With those skills I can create productive apps. They are more
cumbersome to use than software apps or Flash MX apps, but they get the job
done.
To recreate the apps using Flash Remoting, I have to add learning
ActionScript (oops) AND a whole new development app with a new
development environment: Flash MX. AND I have to learn to integrate CFML
with the Flash MX ActionScript code and interface. Not only that,
but I have to learn to use the Flash Interface for the creation graphics
to use in the app. I can't even continue to use graphics tools with which
I am familiar, such as Photoshop. AND to get the opportunity to even
begin to work with Flash Remoting apps, I have to invest approximately
$1000 in new software between upgrading to CFMX and purchasing Flash MX.
And the biggest hurdle? Finding clients who are interested enough in
Flash-based apps to pay the difference in cost for those apps as opposed
to browser-based apps. Not only does client cost have to rise to cover the
cost of software investment, but cost has to rise significantly to develop
the
applications. Almost every client sacrifice some ease-of-use to save money.
That's the biggest drawback to Flash, at least initially: it turns my CFML
RAD
environment into a mud bog of complexity.
I'm intrigued by the potential of Flash Remoting...but making a living while
making it work is another matter.
Some of my frustration is showing with the rapidly changing technology
environment. By the time I learn to use tools well enough to make good
money,
the skill-set has changed. New ways, new tools, constantly. If I can
integrate
new skills slowly, that'll work. But for me, with no Javascript background,
ActionScript and the Flash Interface is not worth the effort.
Perhaps when I become independently wealthy (LOL) I'll have time in my
leisure to spend many hours of unproductive time learning Flash MX Remoting.
Perhaps, by that time, there will be sufficient training materials available
aimed at those who know HTML and CFML only and don't assume a background
in Javascript in the approach to teaching Flash MX Remoting.
But you know what'll happen? Just before I have find enough time to work
with
Flash Remoting to learn it, my 30-day trial will expire before I'm convinced
it can be
implemented successfully. There has got to be some way just to have a
developer's
edition of the software that allows skill development at a reasonable pace
while
producing apps that pay the bills.
However, I do love the Broadmoor Hotel Flash Remoting app...great stuff.
Rick
On Tuesday, Dec 24, 2002, at 10:56 US/Pacific, Rick Faircloth wrote:
----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----
That's an interesting point of view... but ActionScript (not
ActiveScript) is based on ECMA Standard JavaScript. CFML includes
CFscript which is not standard (but I think has moved a little bit in
that direction with CFMX?). Then there's Server Side ActionScript about
which I know nothing, beyond again being based on ECMA Standard
JavaScript. I'm entirely sure that replacing a Standards-based language
with a non-Standards-based language is a good direction to be going.
I'm also not convinced that CFML - as a tag-based language - could even
express the constructs necessary to write Flash movies, at least not
without making it a much more complex process.
What would make more sense, IMO, would be to shift CFscript more toward
ECMA Standard JavaScript. Then folks only have to learn one language.
"SOAP is not so much a means of transmitting data but a mechanism for
calling COM objects over the Web."
-- not Microsoft (surprisingly!)
Author: Sean A Corfield
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:20031#101323
On Tuesday, Dec 24, 2002, at 10:56 US/Pacific, Rick Faircloth wrote:
----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----
That's an interesting point of view... but ActionScript (not
ActiveScript) is based on ECMA Standard JavaScript. CFML includes
CFscript which is not standard (but I think has moved a little bit in
that direction with CFMX?). Then there's Server Side ActionScript about
which I know nothing, beyond again being based on ECMA Standard
JavaScript. I'm entirely sure that replacing a Standards-based language
with a non-Standards-based language is a good direction to be going.
I'm also not convinced that CFML - as a tag-based language - could even
express the constructs necessary to write Flash movies, at least not
without making it a much more complex process.
What would make more sense, IMO, would be to shift CFscript more toward
ECMA Standard JavaScript. Then folks only have to learn one language.
"SOAP is not so much a means of transmitting data but a mechanism for
calling COM objects over the Web."
-- not Microsoft (surprisingly!)
Author: Rick Faircloth
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:20031#101315
Flash needs to undergo some serious UI change to accomodate
app development as opposed to animation/graphics development.
The current UI is similar to what I use everyday for video production.
For producing animated graphics for video, the timeline is necessary.
For producing animated graphics in Flash, the timeline is necessary.
But for application development where developers just need the
graphical interface (minus all the nice, but generally unnecessary
and undesirable animation eye-candy), the timeline is an awful way
to have to program applications. The only reason it's in use now
is that it was developed as an animation UI.
On other forums, several of us have discussed two Flash UI's.
Or Flash "modes"...one for developers who just want to develop apps,
but don't want to work with animation, and another for designers/
animators who want to develop high-end animation work.
Right now it's trying to be all things to all people and that's not working.
While we're on the subject, why can't Flash do away with ActiveScript
and incorporate CFML somehow? I don't know that much about the use
of the languages, and why that wouldn't be possible, but I do know that
I'd probably be using Flash MX Remoting right now if it weren't for the fact
that I've got to learn a whole new language to make it work. With no
javascript
background, that's more of a hill than I want to climb right now, just to
get
web apps that work more like software...
MM has been asking for input from "Flash Newbies" about how Flash
could change the program...right now it's in the middle of a "tween."
Rick
Rick Faircloth,
Prism Productions
Jochem brings up a good point in that cfform's validation features are,
IMHO, worthless. Whatever it is that replaces cfform, if anything,
needs significant improvement on that score.
I think that its time for CF developers to start looking at using Flash
for components in sites. Due to bandwidth and other considerations
we're not ready for entirely Flash-driven sites for the general
marketplace, but in my opinion developers should begin exploring - and
responsibly using - the technology. Macromedia can promote developer
acceptance of Flash in giant steps by integrating Flash components into
CF. Forget about standards if you like... This is about money, control
and and mindshare. If Macromedia wants these things, this is the way to
go. Personally I also think this would be good for the sites we build.
I've often been a vocal opponent of Flash as a design tool, but it has
its place and - in the U.S. market at least - borders on ubiquity. I'll
vigorously grant that it was evil in 2000. But I can't justify that
argument as we approach 2003.
I have one client using Flash for *primary* navigation on five sites. I
screamed bloody murder about that but was overruled. Six months of
stats show they're doing extremely well, with almost zero turnaways due
to lack of Flash (and thanks to careful hoarding of bandwidth). It can
be done so long as you point a gun (figuratively, of course :)) at the
head of the designer.
About those sites - one thing I absolutely can't stand is that I have to
go to that designer for menu system changes (read: fixing his screwups).
CF sells in part as a full-featured solution. Give CF'ers the ability
to use and produce Flash in at least limited ways and you'll grow your
Flash developer base one heck of a lot more quickly.
Would I use CFTree if it were Flash? Maybe. Depends on whether it
works. I'll never use it as a java applet, as while it and CFGrid offer
wonderful features, experience proves neither can be relied upon to work
on a given browser at a given desk. Flash can solve that. Improved
appearance options can give it a broader range of uses. Same goes for
everything else, methinks.
Happy holidays to all,
--Matt Robertson--
MSB Designs, Inc.
http://mysecretbase.com
I like the idea, too. Anyone want to add anything? How many people
use the cfform tag now, and how many more people would use it if it
worked in the manner described below? And how else would you want it
to behave?
Would people be more interested in using the cftree tag if it generated
Flash rather than Java?
Just trying to gather a sample.
Christian
On Monday, December 23, 2002, at 05:29 PM, Matt Robertson wrote:
----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----
Author: Jochem van Dieten
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:20031#101309
ksuh@shaw.ca wrote:
> Jochem, are there any browsers out there that understand XHTML2?
No, the standard is only just shaping up. But with XHTML 1 browsers
understood it way before editors such as CF Studio understood it, and I
would prefer not to have that happen again.
Jochem
Author: ksuh
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:20031#101308
Jochem, are there any browsers out there that understand XHTML2?
----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----
Author: Jochem van Dieten
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:20031#101307
Matt Robertson wrote:
----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----
I don't really see Flash as a design tool (maybe that is because I think
design is overrated anyway). It is an application building tool to me.
As such, I think it is pretty useless to make just a form here and a
form there in Flash. Either integrate totally, or don't use it.
----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----
For that sort of navigational items, it would be nice if there came some
Flash components that understood navigation lists (the nl element from
XHTML 2).
And let me give a syntax suggestion:
<cfobject data="menu.swf" type="application/shockwave">
<nl>
<name>Character Options</name>
<li href="stay.html">Stay</li>
<nl>
<name>Leave</name>
<li href="newjob.html">Job transfer</li>
<li href="divorce.html">Divorce</li>
<li href="fataldisease.html">Fatal disease</li>
</nl>
<li href="backburner.html">Back Burner</li>
</nl>
</cfobject>
If Flash is supported in the browser, it should use the template
menu.swf and build the menu that is inside it. If Flash is not
supported, the browser is able to render the menu. Automatic support for
devices without a Flash player but with a browser guaranteed.
Overall, with the increasing separation between form and content, it
would be nice to see Flash understand form automatically and just render
the content.
XHTML 2 example copied from:
http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/library/wa-xhtml/?n-wa-9192
Jochem
Author: ksuh
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:20031#101306
Right on with you guys about having flash components to replace the java ones.
It would make a lot of people really happy (hint, hint, MM).
----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----
Author: Adrocknaphobia Jones
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:20031#101305
There once was a product named Generator. It was good. Back before cf5
came out, there were some rumors that generator was going to be
intergrated. But alas, it never came to reality.
At this point, I would be really surprised if the next iteration of cf
didn't have some major flash integration. It just seems to make logical
sense, plus the value and benefits are clear.
Only problem is that MM really sucks when it comes to reuseable
components. CFform in cold fusion is a joke to me. I mean, exactly why
do I need 4 pages of javascript to validate my form? Especially when I
can usually rewrite it in under 10 lines. Same goes for the code
Dreamweaver generates, and the UI components in Flash. The UI components
are nice, but not deployable in my standards. Half of them need some
serious optimaization first.
I guess what I'm saying is, if MM did integrate more Flash stuff, I
think I would just find myself not using it, in favor of rolling my own.
Although I'm sure I do not represent the majority.
Matt is right on about CFTree. Other than file access restrictions, it
really should be a flash app. I can't afford to support Java applets.
Adam Wayne Lehman
Web Systems Developer
Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health
Distance Education Division
Jochem brings up a good point in that cfform's validation features are,
IMHO, worthless. Whatever it is that replaces cfform, if anything,
needs significant improvement on that score.
I think that its time for CF developers to start looking at using Flash
for components in sites. Due to bandwidth and other considerations
we're not ready for entirely Flash-driven sites for the general
marketplace, but in my opinion developers should begin exploring - and
responsibly using - the technology. Macromedia can promote developer
acceptance of Flash in giant steps by integrating Flash components into
CF. Forget about standards if you like... This is about money, control
and and mindshare. If Macromedia wants these things, this is the way to
go. Personally I also think this would be good for the sites we build.
I've often been a vocal opponent of Flash as a design tool, but it has
its place and - in the U.S. market at least - borders on ubiquity. I'll
vigorously grant that it was evil in 2000. But I can't justify that
argument as we approach 2003.
I have one client using Flash for *primary* navigation on five sites. I
screamed bloody murder about that but was overruled. Six months of
stats show they're doing extremely well, with almost zero turnaways due
to lack of Flash (and thanks to careful hoarding of bandwidth). It can
be done so long as you point a gun (figuratively, of course :)) at the
head of the designer.
About those sites - one thing I absolutely can't stand is that I have to
go to that designer for menu system changes (read: fixing his screwups).
CF sells in part as a full-featured solution. Give CF'ers the ability
to use and produce Flash in at least limited ways and you'll grow your
Flash developer base one heck of a lot more quickly.
Would I use CFTree if it were Flash? Maybe. Depends on whether it
works. I'll never use it as a java applet, as while it and CFGrid offer
wonderful features, experience proves neither can be relied upon to work
on a given browser at a given desk. Flash can solve that. Improved
appearance options can give it a broader range of uses. Same goes for
everything else, methinks.
Happy holidays to all,
--Matt Robertson--
MSB Designs, Inc.
http://mysecretbase.com
I like the idea, too. Anyone want to add anything? How many people
use the cfform tag now, and how many more people would use it if it
worked in the manner described below? And how else would you want it
to behave?
Would people be more interested in using the cftree tag if it generated
Flash rather than Java?
Just trying to gather a sample.
Christian
On Monday, December 23, 2002, at 05:29 PM, Matt Robertson wrote:
----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----
Author: Matt Robertson
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:20031#101303
Jochem brings up a good point in that cfform's validation features are,
IMHO, worthless. Whatever it is that replaces cfform, if anything,
needs significant improvement on that score.
I think that its time for CF developers to start looking at using Flash
for components in sites. Due to bandwidth and other considerations
we're not ready for entirely Flash-driven sites for the general
marketplace, but in my opinion developers should begin exploring - and
responsibly using - the technology. Macromedia can promote developer
acceptance of Flash in giant steps by integrating Flash components into
CF. Forget about standards if you like... This is about money, control
and and mindshare. If Macromedia wants these things, this is the way to
go. Personally I also think this would be good for the sites we build.
I've often been a vocal opponent of Flash as a design tool, but it has
its place and - in the U.S. market at least - borders on ubiquity. I'll
vigorously grant that it was evil in 2000. But I can't justify that
argument as we approach 2003.
I have one client using Flash for *primary* navigation on five sites. I
screamed bloody murder about that but was overruled. Six months of
stats show they're doing extremely well, with almost zero turnaways due
to lack of Flash (and thanks to careful hoarding of bandwidth). It can
be done so long as you point a gun (figuratively, of course :)) at the
head of the designer.
About those sites - one thing I absolutely can't stand is that I have to
go to that designer for menu system changes (read: fixing his screwups).
CF sells in part as a full-featured solution. Give CF'ers the ability
to use and produce Flash in at least limited ways and you'll grow your
Flash developer base one heck of a lot more quickly.
Would I use CFTree if it were Flash? Maybe. Depends on whether it
works. I'll never use it as a java applet, as while it and CFGrid offer
wonderful features, experience proves neither can be relied upon to work
on a given browser at a given desk. Flash can solve that. Improved
appearance options can give it a broader range of uses. Same goes for
everything else, methinks.
Happy holidays to all,
--Matt Robertson--
MSB Designs, Inc.
http://mysecretbase.com
I like the idea, too. Anyone want to add anything? How many people
use the cfform tag now, and how many more people would use it if it
worked in the manner described below? And how else would you want it
to behave?
Would people be more interested in using the cftree tag if it generated
Flash rather than Java?
Just trying to gather a sample.
Christian
On Monday, December 23, 2002, at 05:29 PM, Matt Robertson wrote:
----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----
Author: Cutter (CF_Talk)
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:20031#101298
Jochem and group,
I completely agree. CFForm's implementation can be cumbersome,
unintuitive, and sometimes downright buggy. I find it much easier, and
more functional, to write my own form validation scripts. The little
buzz I've heard about XForms sounds very promising, and I also think
that would be a good direction for MM to concentrate.
Cutter
Jochem van Dieten wrote:
----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----
Author: Jochem van Dieten
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:20031#101295
Christian Cantrell wrote:
> I like the idea, too. Anyone want to add anything? How many people
> use the cfform tag now, and how many more people would use it if it
> worked in the manner described below? And how else would you want it
> to behave?
I never use cfform, and I doubt I would use a cfflashform if it worked
in the described way. It doesn't sound like it will be easy to integrate
in the look and feel of a site. Just like I find cfform overly
comlicated yet unable to do simple things like show all validation
errors in one popup, which means I have to write custom validation anyway.
I would prefer it if MM took a good look at the way XForms is shaping up
in conjunction with XHTML 2 and put together some good support for that
in Dreamweaver.
> Would people be more interested in using the cftree tag if it generated
> Flash rather than Java?
On the scale of evilness as a browser plugin Java ranks higher as Flash.
Jochem
Author: Christian Cantrell
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:20031#101283
I like the idea, too. Anyone want to add anything? How many people
use the cfform tag now, and how many more people would use it if it
worked in the manner described below? And how else would you want it
to behave?
Would people be more interested in using the cftree tag if it generated
Flash rather than Java?
Just trying to gather a sample.
Christian
On Monday, December 23, 2002, at 05:29 PM, Matt Robertson wrote:
----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----
Author: Matt Robertson
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:20031#101276
Christian wrote,
>Do you mean something like using a cfform tag to generate Flash-based
>forms?
You know, the more I mull this over the more I really like the idea.
Try this on for size: A new suite of form input tags (cfflashinput?) that has
the parms it does now. Add to it color and sizing options. Then, if something
needs to be compiled from a fla to an swf, give the limited ability to do this in
CF Server. Whatever you do don't put this limited-runtime 'compiler' into
Dreamweaver as many don't use it, and plus, if I'm using something like Terminal
Server to do emergency repairs I have to have access to the form generation
tools.
CF would store the swf's in a specified folder on the site's web path so we don't
get into the mapping issues that dog so many cfgrid users; especially on shared
servers.
Obviously this isn't something that would happen tomorrow. Just a thought...
--Matt Robertson--
MSB Designs, Inc.
http://mysecretbase.com
Author: Matt Robertson
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:20031#101275
Yes, thats what I'm getting at. Sort of. :) To some degree less handholding
would be more. I really don't like compiled stuff that black-boxes this or that
operation so I can't get to its inner workings if there's a problem.
CFGRIDUPDATE would be a great example of what I mean. OK to make a cf_gridupdate
thats open source, but don't lock me out of the code so I can't fix it when it
doesn't work with my db or something.
I would definitely replace CFGrid et al with Flash components... assuming of
course they would become *less* buggy :). I would also give serious
consideration to an uncompiled/unencrypted solution so I could take the knowledge
gained using Built-In Tool X and apply it to other CF/Flash
collaborations.
Author: Jason Miller
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:20031#101266
I am in the middle of developing a flash form that loads in data from
.cfm pages that all dynamically queries an access or SQL db.
It's quite powerful and flash is wonderful since I use the 1 component
on 1 frame and if data is loaded - simply reuse the listbox to
repopulate and post.
If this was written into a CFTag it would be quite impressive. and even
faster.. although I am not sure how easy it would be to really do.
if your curious - i am just writing a flash/cf form here
http://www.speedpeople.com/xl_index2.cfm
<http://www.speedpeople.com/xl_index2.cfm>;
Feel free to play around - it's the vehicle search on the top right of
the page. It is depenedant on Flash 6 player but with the flash load
objects var it is worth it. Please keep in mind the site is in
development and it posts to the existing site - so that page above is a
demo page I am developing for client.
point of me chiming in is I COMPLETELY recommend playing around with it.
and I would take it over java applets any day.
Also massimo -- for flash components regarding that datagrid - you
should check out the flash-components.net - I saw another URL that had
AMAZING samples of that datagrid on steroids - pulling in info through
cfm pages, text files or xml files. I have to find it - and repost it.
jay miller
Massimo, Tiziana e Federica wrote:
Do you mean something like using a cfform tag to generate Flash-based
forms? What about other widgets that are currently generated using
Java applets? Think it makes sense to convert them to Flash?
I would definitely love to see it.
BTW If you check the Flash DataGrid component inside DRK 1 you can see
how
something like that could replace <cfgrid>
Massimo
Author: Massimo, Tiziana e Federica
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:20031#101245
> Do you mean something like using a cfform tag to generate Flash-based
> forms? What about other widgets that are currently generated using
> Java applets? Think it makes sense to convert them to Flash?
I would definitely love to see it.
BTW If you check the Flash DataGrid component inside DRK 1 you can see how
something like that could replace <cfgrid>
Massimo
Author: Christian Cantrell
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:20031#101243
Do you mean something like using a cfform tag to generate Flash-based
forms? What about other widgets that are currently generated using
Java applets? Think it makes sense to convert them to Flash?
Christian
On Monday, December 23, 2002, at 01:53 PM, Matt Robertson wrote:
----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----
|
May 24, 2012
|
Latest Fusion Authority Articles
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
