Home of the ColdFusion Community
|
Mailing Lists
|
Home /
Groups /
ColdFusion Talk (CF-Talk)
BLACKSTONE: Software Development Times Article
Author: Sean Corfield
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:34627#175432
> In a way, it is analogous to the SQL specification(s) and
> implementations
In other words "Yes, you can write portable JMS code if you know what
you're doing"...
> 1) I can't make anything work on JRUn JMS
I've sent you corrections to your JMS example code off-list. As I've
said, I have code that runs unchanged on both JRun and Fiorano MQ (you
just change the provider URL - which is the host and port
combination).
> 2) OpenJMS has some very nice, working examples, with source (and a lot
> of proprietary jars). These run fine on OpenJMS but I have been
> unsuccessful porting any of them to JRun
I'm sorry that the examples provided with OpenJMS are so proprietary
that they only run on OpenJMS...
> So, what you stated above ("if you program against the javax.jms spec")
> you will likely have compatibility -- but it seems that very few people
> do!
You need to bear in mind that writing Java to manipulate JMS is not
exactly a novice task...
----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----
A provider URL is a host / port pair so I'd read these as pretty much
equivalent - and an indication that OpenJMS just uses a different
default port (not surprising - we configure Fiorano MQ to use a
variety of different ports).
> I realize that these are examples. meant to illustrate the code, rather
> than getting params from a config file -- but a newbie usually starts
> with examples like these and they have built-in incompatibilities and
> bad coding practices -- and, I guess the newbie is supposed to
> intuitively know this.
That's the problem with trying to start with someone else's example
code instead of reading and understanding all the docs and writing the
code yourself from scratch... :)
Seriously tho' an example is no use unless you understand what the
examples are trying to illustrate (in my experience, most examples are
really only trying to illustrate something that is explained in the
docs - rather than trying to be a replacement for the docs).
> Yeah, but you know what you're doing :).
If it's any consolation, I've had to spend a lot of time reading the
javax.jms API documentation...
--
Sean A Corfield -- http://www.corfield.org/blog/
"If you're not annoying somebody, you're not really alive."
-- Margaret Atwood
Author: Dick Applebaum
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:34627#175379
On Aug 20, 2004, at 3:16 PM, Sean Corfield wrote:
----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----
I have looked at that and a lot of other JMS-related articles, from
what I have been able to determine the specifications are pretty
specific on the message format and interfaces to the provider. Other
than that, it is left to the implementor. And, it appears that each
implementation has its own nuances and extra features (that provide
advantage over the competition).
In a way, it is analogous to the SQL specification(s) and
implementations -- not all db implementations have transactions,
subselects, autonumbering, etc. and/or the soecify these in different
ways (identity, auto_number, etc).
For someone new to the territory it is difficult to determine where the
"specification" leaves off and the vendor-specific implementation
begins.
Examples of my current frustration:
1) I can't make anything work on JRUn JMS
2) OpenJMS has some very nice, working examples, with source (and a lot
of proprietary jars). These run fine on OpenJMS but I have been
unsuccessful porting any of them to JRun
3) There is a very nice Open-Source JMS Browse/Administrator that works
with ActiveMQ, JBossMQ, and Websphere MQ -- but according to the
forums, others, more expert than I have had little success running on
other JMS systems (I tried on OpenJMS without success)
So, what you stated above ("if you program against the javax.jms spec")
you will likely have compatibility -- but it seems that very few people
do!
To illustrate this:
lifted from the livedocs JRun JMS code fragment:
private String providerurl = new String("localhost:2918");
lifted from an OpenJMS code fragment:
int jndiPort = 1099;
String jndiHost = "localhost";
I realize that these are examples. meant to illustrate the code, rather
than getting params from a config file -- but a newbie usually starts
with examples like these and they have built-in incompatibilities and
bad coding practices -- and, I guess the newbie is supposed to
intuitively know this.
I know that OpenJMS works -- I am running it.
I assume that JRun JMS works, but cannot find any program that will run
on JRunJMS (Macromedia & Google searches Plus my own feeble attempts to
complete the code fragment or port OpenJMS examples.)
My frustration, was the reason that I wrote the above paragraph in the
context of lobbying for source to the Macromedia-supplied event gateway
examples.
----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----
Yeah, but you know what you're doing :).
Dick
Author: Sean Corfield
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:34627#175373
> JMS, in particular is dependent on the implementation of the specific
> JMS provider. (JBoss, JRun, IBM, etc all have different interfaces).
That isn't really true: if you program against the javax.jms
specification you will be able to write portable JMS consumer /
publisher code.
> But, I cannot find any workable JRun JMS examples.
The examples in the docs are fragments. I used those examples with
only small additions to write code that works on JRun and Fiorano MQ
without any changes (only the config file changes, specifying the
vendor-specific class names used for context factories etc).
--
Sean A Corfield -- http://www.corfield.org/blog/
"If you're not annoying somebody, you're not really alive."
-- Margaret Atwood
Author: Dick Applebaum
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:34627#175300
On Aug 20, 2004, at 8:59 AM, Sean Corfield wrote:
----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----
Will the OOTB gateways be released as source? If it has not been
decided, I would lobby in favor of making then 0pen-source examples of
how to implement an event gateway.
JMS, in particular is dependent on the implementation of the specific
JMS provider. (JBoss, JRun, IBM, etc all have different interfaces).
Many Blackstone users will likely run on JRun, and use the built-in JMS
provider. But, I cannot find any workable JRun JMS examples.
TIA
Dick
Author: Sean Corfield
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:34627#175289
I think Vince is making some very good points here - remember that New
Atlanta have always said that they are going after a slightly
different audience to Macromedia and therefore the features they add
for their customer base are likely to be slightly different to those
added by Macromedia for their customer base. Tim (Buntel) has
effectively said the same thing: Macromedia add what their customers
ask for. If both sets of customers ask for the same thing, you can
expect to see it implemented in both products - if they ask for
different things then you will naturally get some level of
incompatibility.
----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----
Author: Sean Corfield
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:34627#175286
> Writing an event gateway requires knowledge of Java therefore yours is not a
> valid argument.
True but using one of the out-of-the-box gateways does not nor will
using any 3rd party gateways that people write. The end result will be
access to a large number of protocols with no knowledge of Java
required - for example, my JMS gateway would allow any CF developer to
write a pure CF app that processed JMS XML messages with no knowledge
of Java at all.
> I bet more people are using their own authentication schemes than cflogin.
And I bet they're writing them all in pure CF - what's your point with
that analogy?
--
Sean A Corfield -- http://www.corfield.org/blog/
"If you're not annoying somebody, you're not really alive."
-- Margaret
Atwood
Author: Sean Corfield
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:34627#175282
> If the gateway doesn't support FuseBox 4.5 circuits and the FLiP process
(not to mention .qry and .dsp files), then MACR should go with Mach-II listeners.
Funny you should mention that - I'm currently building a proof of
concept integration between the event gateway and Fusebox 4...
See you at Fusebox 2004? http://www.cfconf.org/fusebox2004/
--
Sean A Corfield -- http://www.corfield.org/blog/
"If you're not annoying somebody, you're not really alive."
-- Margaret
Atwood
Author: Micha Schopman
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:34627#174976
Competition is good..... competition is good..... ;)
Micha Schopman
Software Engineer
Modern Media, Databankweg 12 M, 3821 AL Amersfoort
Tel 033-4535377, Fax 033-4535388
KvK Amersfoort 39081679, Rabo 39.48.05.380
Author: S. Isaac Dealey
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:34627#174965
> LOL
> tony u can speak 4 me anytime, gives me more time to go
> fishin!
> <cfset goodFlyFishingDay = weather EQ rain AND clouds EQ
> overcast AND season NEQ winter>
Syntax is a bit odd... not sure it will work that way, try this:
<cfset overcast = ran & clouds>
<cfif weather eq overcast and season neq winter>
<cfset goodFlyFishingDay = true>
<cfelse>
<cfset goodFlyFishingDay = false>
</cfif>
:)
s. isaac dealey 954.927.5117
new epoch : isn't it time for a change?
add features without fixtures with
the onTap open source framework
http://www.sys-con.com/story/?storyid=44477&DE=1
http://www.sys-con.com/story/?storyid=45569&DE=1
http://www.fusiontap.com
Author: dave
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:34627#174948
LOL
tony u can speak 4 me anytime, gives me more time to go fishin!
<cfset goodFlyFishingDay = weather EQ rain AND clouds EQ overcast AND season
NEQ winter>
Reply-To: cf-talk@houseoffusion.com
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2004 09:38:08 -0400
----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----
Author: Dave Watts
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:34627#174903
> Not at all! This is the perfect time to air concerns regarding
> Blackstone as it allows Macromedia time to address them before the
> product ships if they choose to. They may have already addressed the
> issue or they may not have thought of it. Better to be safe and discuss
> it now.
I don't see how they can be expected to respond to this. MM has said there
will be an event gateway. You're saying it might have been a waste of their
time. Do you expect them to remove the feature if enough people say it's not
worth the time?
In any event, it's hard to predict what will be popular or useful
beforehand. I can't count the number of times I've thought something would
be a really neat feature, but it turned out to be less useful than I
expected. The converse is also true.
> Maybe, but it also might not be possible to invoke CFC's from alternate
> protocols without using the event gateway thus requiring you to use it.
I don't see how that would be possible, given that you said it should be
possible to do this today using non-MM code.
Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
http://www.figleaf.com/
phone: 202-797-5496
fax: 202-797-5444
Author: Benjamin S. Rogers
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:34627#174897
> You are missing the context of the thread though.
Maybe I am. I don't think so, but it's always possible. :) This thread has
been very long, and, as most mailing list conversations go, it's covered
quite a bit of territory.
> The original statement was as follows.
Which itself was a reply to previous message.
> As you can see, the poster suggested that a new gateway could be written,
> so yes it does indeed require knowledge of Java. Since this particular use
> can is not made easier by CF and requires knowledge of Java then the
> argument that CF makes it easier is not valid.
I disagree. I'm sure ColdFusion (the platform) will provide an
infrastructure which makes developing gateways relatively easy. Further, as
I stated in my previous post, I think it provides ColdFusion developers,
gateway developers, and the ColdFusion community with a common interface and
language for describing it.
Now, as to your argument as a whole, I don't think it's a mistake to say
you've spent a good deal of your time in this thread arguing that ColdFusion
gateways offer very little. You've argued that very few applications built
in ColdFusion will have a use for gateways because very few J2EE
applications utilize JMS.
Though I agree that a small percentage of applications will use them, I
think most developers will use gateways in their applications at some point.
By way of example, a relatively small percentage of my applications use COM
interoperability, Web services, or even the cfdirectory tag. Nevertheless, I
find those features indispensable.
You've also stated that you don't believe the built in gateways will be
enough: "What is the likelihood of the built-in gateways doing everything
you need?" In my previous message, I stated that I think the gateways
already announced sound like they'll suffice for most of what I've already
dreamed up. I hope to be proven wrong because that means I will have found
new uses for gateways. :)
All in all, you've been arguing that you can already build gateway-like
interfaces which invoke ColdFusion pages (ostensibly using Java or another
lower level language to detect the event and invoke a ColdFusion page via
HTTP?). For these reasons, you've implied (strongly) that gateways are a
waste of Macromedia's resources.
Do you still think I'm missing the context?
-ben
Author: dcooper
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:34627#174889
NDA reminder here for anyone under NDA.
Thanks
>> In that case, isn't it too early to be having this discussion? Or at
>Not at all! This is the perfect time to air concerns regarding Blackstone as
Author: Matt Liotta
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:34627#174888
> In that case, isn't it too early to be having this discussion? Or at
> least,
> to expect it to be a meaningful discussion?
>
Not at all! This is the perfect time to air concerns regarding Blackstone as
it allows Macromedia time to address them before the product ships if they
choose to. They may have already addressed the issue or they may not have
thought of it. Better to be safe and discuss it now.
> Just because something is built-in doesn't mean you have to use it. There
> are plenty of CFMX applications using something other than CFLOGIN and
> IsUserInRole for authentication and authorization, just as there were
> plenty
> of CF 5 applications that didn't use CFAUTHENTICATE, etc.
>
Maybe, but it also might not be possible to invoke CFC's from alternate
protocols without using the event gateway thus requiring you to use it.
-Matt
Author: Dave Watts
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:34627#174886
> That is a fair argument, but I think it is too early to tell whether
> the event gateway will provide this consistency.
In that case, isn't it too early to be having this discussion? Or at least,
to expect it to be a meaningful discussion?
> Again, the framework it provides could be great, but it could also
> suck. That is the great thing about community frameworks; if they suck
> you can avoid them and use something that doesn't. If the framework is
> built-in then you have little choice to use something else.
Just because something is built-in doesn't mean you have to use it. There
are plenty of CFMX applications using something other than CFLOGIN and
IsUserInRole for authentication and authorization, just as there were plenty
of CF 5 applications that didn't use CFAUTHENTICATE, etc.
Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
http://www.figleaf.com/
phone: 202-797-5496
fax: 202-797-5444
Author: Vince Bonfanti
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:34627#174879
Hmmm...the answer to that is unclear, and depends on your perspective and
what features you need most. If you rely heavily on Flash integration, then
my guess is the ColdFusion will always be a better choice than BlueDragon.
On the other hand, if you're looking for ASP.NET integration (for example),
then BlueDragon is the obvious (only) choice.
As for "lagging big time in the compatibility dept", I'll only point out the
Blackstone is finally delivering in 2005 features that were pioneered by
BlueDragon and have been in use by our customers since 2002 (standard J2EE
WAR/EAR deployment, precompiled CFML templates for source-less deployment,
CFIMAGE tag, etc.). Other more recent features, such as CFC serialization,
are supported by BlueDragon 6.1 now, but won't be in Blackstone until 2005.
So, again, the question of who is leading and who is lagging isn't as
clear-cut as you might think. The feature sets of ColdFusion and BlueDragon
will never be exactly the same, so the choice will come down to: which
features do you need the most? Repeat slowly: choice is good...choice is
good...choice is good...
Vince Bonfanti
New Atlanta Communications, LLC
http://www.newatlanta.com
________________________________
Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2004 1:45 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: BLACKSTONE: Software Development Times Article
Hmm, that's an interesting point on flash generation... Did New
Atlanta just get left behind big time in the compatability dept?
Date: 8/18/04 8:59 am
To: CF-Talk
Subj: RE: BLACKSTONE: Software Development Times Article
I don't know what to do with you Tony. You keep posting comments
with no
basis in facts that don't make much sense anyway. I'd really like to
avoid
addressing them or falling prey to my desire to respond negatively.
Is that
what you want? Is there some point to your comments?
For the rest of you reading this, I have no financial interest in
the
success or failure of BlueDragon. Although, I would like to see them
succeed. I don't know whether New Atlanta will implement the event
gateway.
I don't know whether they can. I certainly think they should
implement it if
for no other reason then to be compatible with ColdFusion. We all
want that
right?
Personally, if I were to guess which functionality would be hard to
implement in BlueDragon I wouldn't guess something like the event
gateway. I
would guess something that produces Flash on the fly.
-Matt
Author: Brian Kotek
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:34627#174875
Why? They're all fine frameworks. No gasket-blowing in sight (unless
one considers your random irrational generalizations as blowing a
gasket).
I'm sorry...I just can't help myself. As I was typing the above
response, I could see a red-faced "FuseBoxer" knee-deep in a "nested
circuit" just blowing a gasket at the insinuation that Struts or JSF
could be mentioned in the same breath as FuseBox.
I can't begin to imagine what the OnTap, CF/MVC and Tapestry camps are thinking.
Cheers! :-)
--
Alex
Author: Matt Liotta
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:34627#174873
----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----
That is a fair argument, but I think it is too early to tell whether the
event gateway will provide this consistency. Again, the framework it
provides could be great, but it could also suck. That is the great thing
about community frameworks; if they suck you can avoid them and use
something that doesn't. If the framework is built-in then you have little
choice to use something else.
> I could, but I don't. So... that doesn't change my statement any.
>
My point is that the following are all the same:
<cfset mystruct.foo = "bar">
<cfset mystruct["foo"] = "bar">
<cfset mystruct.put("foo", "bar")>
The first two lines are CFML syntax, while the last line is Java syntax.
They all work because a struct is in fact a Java object. Therefore, any of
those lines above are uses of a Java object.
> You'd made the comment that MM is historically not good at creating
> frameworks for people to use in comparison to the CF community. I was
> just pointing out a notable exception.
>
I don't consider <cfapplication> to be a framework.
-Matt
Author: Tangorre, Michael
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:34627#174871
Nothing wrong with Fusebox. Nothing wrong with any framework or
methodology... Whatever works for ya.
Michael T. Tangorre
----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----
Author: Alexander Sherwood
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:34627#174869
At 01:46 PM 8/18/2004, you wrote:
>> It has to do with Mach-II blowing all other frameworks away. That is,
>> except Java Server Faces and Struts.
>>
>Glad you cleared that up. ;)
I'm sorry...I just can't help myself. As I was typing the above response, I could
see a red-faced "FuseBoxer" knee-deep in a "nested circuit" just blowing a gasket
at the insinuation that Struts or JSF could be mentioned in the same breath as
FuseBox.
I can't begin to imagine what the OnTap, CF/MVC and Tapestry camps are thinking.
Cheers! :-)
--
Alex
----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----
Author: S. Isaac Dealey
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:34627#174867
----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----
Didn't realize it was in that context... but okay -- since I read the
other one where you quoted the context you were speaking within
specifically -- the _minor_ revision then is -- "if you don't like the
way the pre-built gateways work, buy or use one someone else has
built", which is still a lot easier than building one yourself if you
don't have lots of Java expertise. The fact that CF provides a
consistent framework for that means that it will be easier for people
who have Java expertise to provide them to people who don't. Even if
it's only a linguistic thing, the fact that people are talking about
the CF native feature will mean they will be more accessible in all
likelyhood - there will be more information about them, etc and likely
more people will be looking for them (and on the other side of the
supply-demand system building) once it's a part of the common language
of native CF features.
----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----
I could, but I don't. So... that doesn't change my statement any.
----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----
You'd made the comment that MM is historically not good at creating
frameworks for people to use in comparison to the CF community. I was
just pointing out a notable exception.
context, context. :)
s. isaac dealey 954.927.5117
new epoch : isn't it time for a change?
add features without fixtures with
the onTap open source framework
http://www.sys-con.com/story/?storyid=44477&DE=1
http://www.sys-con.com/story/?storyid=45569&DE=1
http://www.fusiontap.com
Author: Matt Liotta
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:34627#174866
> It has to do with Mach-II blowing all other frameworks away. That is,
> except Java Server Faces and Struts.
>
Glad you cleared that up. ;)
-Matt
Author: Calvin Ward
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:34627#174864
Hmm, that's an interesting point on flash generation... Did New Atlanta just get
left behind big time in the compatability dept?
Subj: RE: BLACKSTONE: Software Development Times Article
I don't know what to do with you Tony. You keep posting comments with no
basis in facts that don't make much sense anyway. I'd really like to avoid
addressing them or falling prey to my desire to respond negatively. Is that
what you want? Is there some point to your comments?
For the rest of you reading this, I have no financial interest in the
success or failure of BlueDragon. Although, I would like to see them
succeed. I don't know whether New Atlanta will implement the event gateway.
I don't know whether they can. I certainly think they should implement it if
for no other reason then to be compatible with ColdFusion. We all want that
right?
Personally, if I were to guess which functionality would be hard to
implement in BlueDragon I wouldn't guess something like the event gateway. I
would guess something that produces Flash on the fly.
-Matt
----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----
Author: Alexander Sherwood
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:34627#174862
At 01:35 PM 8/18/2004, you wrote:
----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----
It has to do with Mach-II blowing all other frameworks away. That is, except Java
Server Faces and Struts.
--
Alex
Author: Matt Liotta
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:34627#174861
----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----
My response was in relation to writing an event gateway; not using an
existing one. CF does not make it easier or harder to write an event gateway
since you can only write an event gateway in CF. Further, writing an event
gateway requires knowledge of Java. Thus, you argument is not valid. If you
are going to argue against me then you have to stay in the context of the
thread of positions don't make sense.
> <cfset mystruct.mykey = 0>
>
> I use the CF -- CF uses the Java object. This is not the same thing as
> me using the underlying Java object.
>
What about <cfset mystruct.put("foo", "bar")>?
> Probably. But very few (if any) are using their own application
> schemes instead of <cfapplication>.
>
What does that have to do with cflogin or frameworks?
-Matt
Author: S. Isaac Dealey
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:34627#174857
>> Like all things CF, it's more accessible to people who
>> aren't Java experts.
>>
> Writing an event gateway requires knowledge of Java
> therefore yours is not a valid argument.
Excuse me? MM is providing a handful of pre-built gateways to begin
with, much less having a consistent interface provided by MM which
allows others who are Java knowledgeable to create, package and
distribute additional gateways. At which point, yes, it is a very
valid argument. The end result will be that developers who are not
Java knowledgeable will be able to do things which would otherwise
require extensive knowledge of Java.
----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----
<cfset mystruct.mykey = 0>
I use the CF -- CF uses the Java object. This is not the same thing as
me using the underlying Java object.
----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----
Probably. But very few (if any) are using their own application
schemes instead of <cfapplication>.
s. isaac dealey 954.927.5117
new epoch : isn't it time for a change?
add features without fixtures with
the onTap open source framework
http://www.sys-con.com/story/?storyid=44477&DE=1
http://www.sys-con.com/story/?storyid=45569&DE=1
http://www.fusiontap.com
Author: Thomas Chiverton
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:34627#174845
> And use that for cfquery how? ... I know that I can connect to
Well, either write your own cf_query, or a cfquery object/UDF to behave like
cfquery did back when CF support DSN-less nativly (4.5 ?)... all you are
doing with hacking the java is what CF would have to do behind the scenes
anyway.
> 2nd url in my sig is an article about accessing datasources through
I ignore urls in sigs, or ones longer than 4 lines.
Yes, I know about mine - 'company policy' :-(
--
Tom Chiverton
Advanced ColdFusion Programmer
Tel: +44(0)1749 834997
email: tom.chiverton@bluefinger.com
BlueFinger Limited
Underwood Business Park
Wookey Hole Road, WELLS. BA5 1AF
Tel: +44 (0)1749 834900
Fax: +44 (0)1749 834901
web: www.bluefinger.com
Company Reg No: 4209395 Registered Office: 2 Temple Back East, Temple
Quay, BRISTOL. BS1 6EG.
*** This E-mail contains confidential information for the addressee
only. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify us
immediately. You should not use, disclose, distribute or copy this
communication if received in error. No binding contract will result from
this e-mail until such time as a written document is signed on behalf of
the company. BlueFinger Limited cannot accept responsibility for the
completeness or accuracy of this message as it has been transmitted over
public networks.***
Author: S. Isaac Dealey
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:34627#174838
>> CF-Admin... If I could get DSN-less connections with
>> CFMX, I'd be all
>> over it.
> Umm, you can, with the service factory java objects...
And use that for cfquery how? ... I know that I can connect to
datasources without using a DSN by hacking the Java, and I know that I
can create new DSN's on the fly using the serviceFactory -- neither of
those are what I want. I want to be able to connect to a database on
the fly to use <cfquery> against it without needing a dsn. Hell, the
2nd url in my sig is an article about accessing datasources through
the serviceFactory.
s. isaac dealey 954.927.5117
new epoch : isn't it time for a change?
add features without fixtures with
the onTap open source framework
http://www.sys-con.com/story/?storyid=44477&DE=1
http://www.sys-con.com/story/?storyid=45569&DE=1
http://www.fusiontap.com
Author: Matt Liotta
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:34627#174835
> Declaring that it's not a valid argument does not make it so. As many
> people
> have already stated, there will be several built in gateways. ColdFusion
> developers will be able to start using these from day one with no
> knowledge
> of Java.
>
You are missing the context of the thread though. The original statement was
as follows.
> Think about this... don't like the way CFMX handles webservices?
> Thinks its buggy and a pain to use? Just don't want to use Axis
> because you have a better idea? Write your own event gateway for
> webservices and that utilizes some other SOAP engine. Want to
> implement SOAP via SMTP which CF doesn't really do? Write your own
> gateway.
>
As you can see, the poster suggested that a new gateway could be written, so
yes it does indeed require knowledge of Java. Since this particular use can
is not made easier by CF and requires knowledge of Java then the argument
that CF makes it easier is not valid.
-Matt
Author: Benjamin S. Rogers
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:34627#174825
> > Like all things CF, it's more accessible to people who aren't Java
> > experts.
> >
> Writing an event gateway requires knowledge of Java therefore yours is not
> a valid argument.
Declaring that it's not a valid argument does not make it so. As many people
have already stated, there will be several built in gateways. ColdFusion
developers will be able to start using these from day one with no knowledge
of Java.
I've only had the past week or two to think of ways to utilize gateways. The
gateways that have already been announced sound like they will suffice for
the uses I've been able to come up with.
However, I'm sure that, as new possibilities occur to me, I may find I need
other gateways. At which point, I'm sure I'll be able to download or
purchase gateways from third parties. If all else fails, I can hire a Java
programmer to write the gateway and then program to it from within
ColdFusion.
None of these options require any knowledge of Java on my part. Granted, the
third option, hiring a Java programmer, doesn't offer ColdFusion developers
much more than what is capable today.
Nevertheless, the gateway architecture will provide a de facto standard for
integrating gateways with ColdFusion. I think that alone is a good thing
because it gives developers, writers and teachers something to focus on and
simplifies the language for discussing gateways and their use from within
ColdFusion.
-ben
Author: Alexander Sherwood
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:34627#174822
At 10:36 AM 8/18/2004, you wrote:
>What are you talking about? If you're being serious, this doesn't make
>any sense at all. If you're joking, it's not funny.
I'm serious. I just ported the Mach-II framework to a nice, compact 12K
executable for my Commodore-64. Now I can connect my 64 (and my old Commodore
PET, soon) to my Pentium box via the gateway.
Decoupling CFMX from the jaws of HTTP has opended new doors for legacy
integration. And FB4 makes this possible.
--
Alex
----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----
Author: Gavin Brook
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:34627#174818
I've been following this thread and I wanted to share my thoughts...
I've been developing for many years now and I'm a firm believer in using the
right technology for the right job. Arguing about whether to use a
Macromedia supplied tag or to write something in Java is a personal choice.
If the Macromedia supplied tags will do the job and do it well, then that
maybe that's the best route. If more advanced functionality is needed then
then maybe Java, or other appropriate technology. Choosing the right
technology depends on a number of factors, including available resources,
money, time, skills,etc.
Macromedia, New Atlanta, etc are in business to make money. The best way to
do that is to sell products to as many people as possible. To do that these
products have to appeal to as many people as possible. I agree with Doug.
Macromedia, by building in higher level, easier to use features, they appeal
to more high-end users. It should also be bore in mind that one of the "key
features" of Blackstone is that there will be something for everyone. From
the advanced developer who's been using ColdFusion or Java for years, down
to the beginner who's just started writing applications.
Personally I'm looking forward to trying Blackstone out. There's so many
things I'd like to try, and from the very brief details around I can think
of several uses for the features that have been mentioned. As to whether
they will fit in with my applications, that will be seen when the full
documentation or product is ready for testing.
Gavin
I particularly like the feature in Blackstone of being able to incorporate
PGP
encryption for better security of personal information collected on
e-commerce
applications, but the document and reporting functionality is awesome as
well.
Event management is probably a feature set that I would rarely use, but I
guess
it does not hurt anything that it is available if wanted or needed.
As for BD, I think the perception is that MM is mainly targeting the high
end
user, while the low end and middle is where most of us operate. For this
area
BD fills a vacant spot.. It does have most of the functionality we use from
day
to day, but it is not the end-all
Of course, we all realize that not all web sites are requiring rich media,
flash
glitz, etc, and, in fact are much simpler in concept and layout. Of course,
CSS
is being more widely used, and that alone helps a lot with load times, and
site
appearance without having to copy and pase duplicate code all over the
place.
CSS makes it easier to completely change the appearance of a site making it
very
useful in development of multiople sites whose layout may be similar but
still
have an individually desinged look and feel.
Many of the higher priority items which are so often overlooked is the ease
of
use, user friendly navigation throughout the site. When every site you
visit
have a different concept of navigation, use of popups, popunders, etc, seems
to
turn a lot of visitors off and shortens both their visit time but their
visit
frequency.
I personally have much admiraton for the develoeprs who do the sites for
music
and artistic sites, because just like with their live performances flashy
and
glitzy is what it is all about. On the other hand, many web sites, just by
their nature can be actually harmed by the addition of complicated flash,
and
weird navigation schemes, and even more admiration must be given tothe
developer
who can tell the difference and use it in theor approach to marketing their
skills.
======================================
Our Anti-spam solution works!!
http://www.clickdoug.com/mailfilter.cfm
For hosting solutions http://www.clickdoug.com
http://www.forta.com/cf/isp/isp.cfm?isp_id=1069
======================================
Personally, the moment BlueDragon came out I thought.. "those guys
actually
give us what the community always wanted". BlueDragon just filled up that
spot
which has always been on the request list of many developers.
_____
Author: Doug White
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:34627#174813
I particularly like the feature in Blackstone of being able to incorporate PGP
encryption for better security of personal information collected on e-commerce
applications, but the document and reporting functionality is awesome as well.
Event management is probably a feature set that I would rarely use, but I guess
it does not hurt anything that it is available if wanted or needed.
As for BD, I think the perception is that MM is mainly targeting the high end
user, while the low end and middle is where most of us operate. For this area
BD fills a vacant spot.. It does have most of the functionality we use from day
to day, but it is not the end-all
Of course, we all realize that not all web sites are requiring rich media, flash
glitz, etc, and, in fact are much simpler in concept and layout. Of course, CSS
is being more widely used, and that alone helps a lot with load times, and site
appearance without having to copy and pase duplicate code all over the place.
CSS makes it easier to completely change the appearance of a site making it very
useful in development of multiople sites whose layout may be similar but still
have an individually desinged look and feel.
Many of the higher priority items which are so often overlooked is the ease of
use, user friendly navigation throughout the site. When every site you visit
have a different concept of navigation, use of popups, popunders, etc, seems to
turn a lot of visitors off and shortens both their visit time but their visit
frequency.
I personally have much admiraton for the develoeprs who do the sites for music
and artistic sites, because just like with their live performances flashy and
glitzy is what it is all about. On the other hand, many web sites, just by
their nature can be actually harmed by the addition of complicated flash, and
weird navigation schemes, and even more admiration must be given tothe developer
who can tell the difference and use it in theor approach to marketing their
skills.
======================================
Our Anti-spam solution works!!
http://www.clickdoug.com/mailfilter.cfm
For hosting solutions http://www.clickdoug.com
http://www.forta.com/cf/isp/isp.cfm?isp_id=1069
======================================
Personally, the moment BlueDragon came out I thought.. "those guys actually
give us what the community always wanted". BlueDragon just filled up that spot
which has always been on the request list of many developers.
Author: Matt Liotta
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:34627#174809
> Like all things CF, it's more accessible to people who aren't Java
> experts.
>
Writing an event gateway requires knowledge of Java therefore yours is not a
valid argument.
> After all, a structure is just a Java object. So what makes CF
> structures any better than using the underlying Java object (which is
> also available to us)?
>
You are using the underlying Java object.
> Frameworks designed better in the community: yes and no. Although I
> haven't used cflogin yet, I'm not about to rewrite the "application
> framework".
>
I bet more people are using their own authentication schemes than cflogin.
-Matt
Author: Thomas Chiverton
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:34627#174806
> CF-Admin... If I could get DSN-less connections with CFMX, I'd be all
> over it.
Umm, you can, with the service factory java objects...
--
Tom Chiverton
Advanced ColdFusion Programmer
Tel: +44(0)1749 834997
email: tom.chiverton@bluefinger.com
BlueFinger Limited
Underwood Business Park
Wookey Hole Road, WELLS. BA5 1AF
Tel: +44 (0)1749 834900
Fax: +44 (0)1749 834901
web: www.bluefinger.com
Company Reg No: 4209395 Registered Office: 2 Temple Back East, Temple
Quay, BRISTOL. BS1 6EG.
*** This E-mail contains confidential information for the addressee
only. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify us
immediately. You should not use, disclose, distribute or copy this
communication if received in error. No binding contract will result from
this e-mail until such time as a written document is signed on behalf of
the company. BlueFinger Limited cannot accept responsibility for the
completeness or accuracy of this message as it has been transmitted over
public networks.***
Author: Brian Kotek
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:34627#174807
What are you talking about? If you're being serious, this doesn't make
any sense at all. If you're joking, it's not funny.
At 09:56 AM 8/18/2004, you wrote:
----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----
Nope.
If the gateway doesn't support FuseBox 4.5 circuits and the FLiP
process (not to mention .qry and .dsp files), then MACR should go with
Mach-II listeners.
Mach-II is really the best choice to build the forthcoming remote Java
--> CFC invocation event-based gateway, by far.
--
True________________________________
Author: S. Isaac Dealey
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:34627#174801
> If the gateway doesn't support FuseBox 4.5 circuits and
> the FLiP process (not to mention .qry and .dsp files),
> then MACR should go with Mach-II listeners.
> Mach-II is really the best choice to build the forthcoming
> remote Java --> CFC invocation event-based gateway, by
> far.
Ummm... no...
Macromedia should do nothing to support any framework whether it's FB,
Mach-II, the onTap framework or anything else. They should build
ColdFusion to support (gasp!) ColdFusion and let us figure out how to
translate that into something we can use in our independent
frameworks.
The "best choice to build the forthcoming remote Java --> CFC
invocation event-based gateway" by far is Java and CFC's.
I'm pretty sure Macromedia sees it this way as well.
s. isaac dealey 954.927.5117
new epoch : isn't it time for a change?
add features without fixtures with
the onTap open source framework
http://www.sys-con.com/story/?storyid=44477&DE=1
http://www.sys-con.com/story/?storyid=45569&DE=1
http://www.fusiontap.com
Author: Charlie Griefer
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:34627#174793
I'm more silenced at the notion of Tony representing the "soft spoken" :)
(but while there is a short silence, I'm going to throw in a soft spoken
request that this thread move to community?)
Alexander Sherwood wrote:
----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----
Author: Alexander Sherwood
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:34627#174791
At 09:56 AM 8/18/2004, you wrote:
----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----
Nope.
If the gateway doesn't support FuseBox 4.5 circuits and the FLiP process (not to
mention .qry and .dsp files), then MACR should go with Mach-II listeners.
Mach-II is really the best choice to build the forthcoming remote Java --> CFC
invocation event-based gateway, by far.
--
True
Author: Tangorre, Michael
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:34627#174786
----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----
And with that... Tony single handedly silenced the list. LOL
Author: Tony Weeg
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:34627#174785
you know what man, i dont want, wait a minute,
YOU CANT DO ANYTHING WITH ME, you dont have that option, friend, sorry.
now, mike d, he could throw him off the list, sure...
im not here to get into a pissing match with you matt, i just tend to
be the voice of
the soft spoken crowd. the crowd that is sick of your sentiments, sick
of your cynicism and just generally sick of your pessimistic
arrogance...
matt, i respect your intelligence, i respect your message, you are way
off the scales on the iq chart im sure, but....your delivery sucks.
if your personality was half of what your intelligence was, man, im
sure you could be president. i hope this doesnt offend you, its not
intended to do so, this list isnt the forum for this, and i dont have
the time for it, but please, dont take offense, learn a lesson in
people skills, it will GET YOU VERY FAR!!!!!!!!!!
tony.
----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----
Author: S. Isaac Dealey
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:34627#174783
----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----
Like all things CF, it's more accessible to people who aren't Java
experts.
After all, a structure is just a Java object. So what makes CF
structures any better than using the underlying Java object (which is
also available to us)?
As to the cf-admin -- I haven't needed webservices for anything I've
worked on yet, but as a rule, I prefer things to not be in the
CF-Admin... If I could get DSN-less connections with CFMX, I'd be all
over it.
Frameworks designed better in the community: yes and no. Although I
haven't used cflogin yet, I'm not about to rewrite the "application
framework".
s. isaac dealey 954.927.5117
new epoch : isn't it time for a change?
add features without fixtures with
the onTap open source framework
http://www.sys-con.com/story/?storyid=44477&DE=1
http://www.sys-con.com/story/?storyid=45569&DE=1
http://www.fusiontap.com
Author: Micha Schopman
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:34627#174781
Personally, the moment BlueDragon came out I thought.. "those guys actually give
us what the community always wanted". BlueDragon just filled up that spot which
has always been on the request list of many developers.
And also personally, I don't think I will ever use Flash forms, or auto-generated
forms by ColdFusion, you always have to do a lot of work to let it fit into the
application. The chances that I use the event gateway are way much higher, but as
someone already said, it depends on the model and since we haven't seen any model
or code it is hard to discuss about it or to form an opinion about it.
Personally, for me the selling points in Blackstone are the reporting features,
the cfdocument tag, and the compiled deployment of files. If you are a basic
ColdFusion user, flashy forms are nice, but for me, as I use and code in
javascript extensivily, Flash forms are unsufficient and cause to much overhead
in the bigger picture.
I now this is a feature Macromedia has to push, because of the rich internet
model strategy combined with Flex etc., but I am kinda resistant to those niché
things which seem to cost me more time than they promise. "Customer A; I don't
like the blue spot" "Customer B; I miss this and this functionality" .. .. I
guess I ended up starting FlashMX, developing the missing parts, and still it
doesn't react or isn't as fast as ordinary markup with javascript. :)
Micha Schopman
Software Engineer
Modern Media, Databankweg 12 M, 3821 AL Amersfoort
Tel 033-4535377, Fax 033-4535388
KvK Amersfoort 39081679, Rabo 39.48.05.380
Author: Matt Liotta
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:34627#174776
I don't know what to do with you Tony. You keep posting comments with no
basis in facts that don't make much sense anyway. I'd really like to avoid
addressing them or falling prey to my desire to respond negatively. Is that
what you want? Is there some point to your comments?
For the rest of you reading this, I have no financial interest in the
success or failure of BlueDragon. Although, I would like to see them
succeed. I don't know whether New Atlanta will implement the event gateway.
I don't know whether they can. I certainly think they should implement it if
for no other reason then to be compatible with ColdFusion. We all want that
right?
Personally, if I were to guess which functionality would be hard to
implement in BlueDragon I wouldn't guess something like the event gateway. I
would guess something that produces Flash on the fly.
-Matt
----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----
Author: Tony Weeg
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:34627#174775
is the underlying factor here some problem with how BD wont be able to
piggyback the event gateway or use it or steal it?
must be something like this, or else i dont think matt's panties would
be in a bunch like this...they only tend to get into this sorta snag
when something like this is happening...
----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----
Author: Matt Liotta
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:34627#174774
> Blackstone will ship with a number of out-of-the-box gateways that
> connect to a number of protocols - meaning ColdFusion developers don't
> need to write them. That in itself is a win.
>
Agreed, but Macromedia could have supplied protocol handlers without
building an event gateway. Instead, they went and built a framework that
constrains what an event gateway is and can do. That could be a really good
thing or it could be a really bad thing. Time will tell, but so far
frameworks have always been done better in the community.
> Blackstone also provides an easy-to-use basic framework for such
> gateways to run inside, wired into the CF Admin. Ease of management is
> another win.
>
What is managed exactly? If it is anything like the web service "management"
you find now then no thanks.
-Matt
Author: Thane Sherrington
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:34627#174773
At 03:53 PM 8/17/2004, Joe Rinehart wrote:
>I think you left off my favorite:
>
><CFWRITEMYAPPLICATIONFORME>
I start every program with:
<CFSetErrorsOff>
<CFDoWhatIMeant>
T
Author: Matt Liotta
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:34627#174772
> Matt, don't you realize that the event gateway IS external Java
> invocation of CFCs? I remember you complaining about not being able
> to to this without really digging really deep and that it really
> wasn't recommened due to its fragile and tricky nature. Isn't nice
> that MM has provided a public, documented and fully supported API for
> interacting with CFMX via extenal Java code?
>
I don't believe the event gateway and Java invocation of CFCs is the same
thing. There should be an easy way to call CFCs from Java and my
understanding is that Blackstone will have it. The event gateway it seems
will be at a higher level constraining you to a framework Macromedia
designed.
> Sure, the event gateway is not the most wiz-bang feature in store, but
> decoupling CFMX from the HTTP protocol (not the browser) and making
> that lower level interaction simple and accessible is a very important
> change.
>
If you have Java invocation of CFCs then you don't have to be tied to the
HTTP protocol anyway. Again, the event gateway is not required for all the
use cases people keep mentioning.
> Think about this... don't like the way CFMX handles webservices?
> Thinks its buggy and a pain to use? Just don't want to use Axis
> because you have a better idea? Write your own event gateway for
> webservices and that utilizes some other SOAP engine. Want to
> implement SOAP via SMTP which CF doesn't really do? Write your own
> gateway.
>
Again, with Java invocation of CFCs you could do just that. What about the
event gateway makes it better?
> Come on Matt. Java's great, but why bother with it if you don't have
> to... especially if you can do it easier in CF?
>
Again, if the built-in event gateways don't do what you want you still need
to use Java to build them, so that isn't really an argument.
-Matt
Author: Thomas Chiverton
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:34627#174771
> Compare this with an event gateway, which is still undefined,
<cough>
Speak for yourself.
--
Tom Chiverton
Advanced ColdFusion Programmer
Tel: +44(0)1749 834997
email: tom.chiverton@bluefinger.com
BlueFinger Limited
Underwood Business Park
Wookey Hole Road, WELLS. BA5 1AF
Tel: +44 (0)1749 834900
Fax: +44 (0)1749 834901
web: www.bluefinger.com
Company Reg No: 4209395 Registered Office: 2 Temple Back East, Temple
Quay, BRISTOL. BS1 6EG.
*** This E-mail contains confidential information for the addressee
only. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify us
immediately. You should not use, disclose, distribute or copy this
communication if received in error. No binding contract will result from
this e-mail until such time as a written document is signed on behalf of
the company. BlueFinger Limited cannot accept responsibility for the
completeness or accuracy of this message as it has been transmitted over
public networks.***
Author: Sean Corfield
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:34627#174763
> However, the only
> missing piece currently is Java invocation of CFCs.
See Ben Forta's tour report:
http://www.macromedia.com/devnet/mx/coldfusion/articles/blackstone.html
In particular:
"Lots of Other Goodies
Big and exciting marquee features grab the limelight, but there is a
lot more to Blackstone too. Some of the other goodies include:
...
* Access to CFC code from Java
..."
So Blackstone will include the raw access that you mention.
The question is then whether the event gateway adds value on top of
that. I'll argue it does.
Blackstone will ship with a number of out-of-the-box gateways that
connect to a number of protocols - meaning ColdFusion developers don't
need to write them. That in itself is a win.
Blackstone also provides an easy-to-use basic framework for such
gateways to run inside, wired into the CF Admin. Ease of management is
another win.
--
Sean A Corfield -- http://www.corfield.org/blog/
"If you're not annoying somebody, you're not really alive."
-- Margaret
Atwood
Author: Paul Kenney
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:34627#174762
Matt, don't you realize that the event gateway IS external Java
invocation of CFCs? I remember you complaining about not being able
to to this without really digging really deep and that it really
wasn't recommened due to its fragile and tricky nature. Isn't nice
that MM has provided a public, documented and fully supported API for
interacting with CFMX via extenal Java code?
Sure, the event gateway is not the most wiz-bang feature in store, but
decoupling CFMX from the HTTP protocol (not the browser) and making
that lower level interaction simple and accessible is a very important
change.
Think about this... don't like the way CFMX handles webservices?
Thinks its buggy and a pain to use? Just don't want to use Axis
because you have a better idea? Write your own event gateway for
webservices and that utilizes some other SOAP engine. Want to
implement SOAP via SMTP which CF doesn't really do? Write your own
gateway.
Come on Matt. Java's great, but why bother with it if you don't have
to... especially if you can do it easier in CF?
----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----
Author: dave
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:34627#174758
matt,
does anything make u happy?
my god man
what can we do 2 put some sunshine up yer bum?
Reply-To: cf-talk@houseoffusion.com
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 22:03:56 -0400
----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----
Author: Dick Applebaum
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:34627#174757
On Aug 17, 2004, at 7:03 PM, Matt Liotta wrote:
----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----
They made it easy!
Dick
Author: Matt Liotta
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:34627#174753
----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----
What about the event gateway allowed you to do this exactly? I can receive
XML message asynchronously now. I can imagine that the event gateway allows
you to do this more elegantly than current solutions. However, the only
missing piece currently is Java invocation of CFCs. It almost seems like
Macromedia went to far since the event gateway likely constrains people
where as Java invocation of CFCs does not.
-Matt
Author: Dick Applebaum
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:34627#174752
On Aug 17, 2004, at 5:02 PM, Sean Corfield wrote:
----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----
So, using mostly existing CF contrusts, you are able to improve
reliability and performance of the individual app and reduce overall
impact (firing a scheduled task to poll for work) on the entire CF
system.
That's pretty significant!
Dick
Author: Sean Corfield
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:34627#174751
> I personally feel that features like event gateway, once we 'understand' its
details will have features to integrate 3rd party vendors. I am curious how
> Sean Cornfield implemented it against Oracle Financial, since we have a
similar situation. I can see a given gateway being 'built' against maybe an OLAP
or
> Content Management sysytem.
I'd already built a standard CF app that took XML files and imported
them into Oracle Applications via the database. The event gateway has
allowed me to receive XML messages asynchronously and use the same
code to process them as I was already using for the XML files. JMS is
much more reliable than shuffling files around and lets me process
data in real time instead of using a scheduled task to poll the FTP
server for new data files...
--
Sean A Corfield -- http://www.corfield.org/blog/
"If you're not annoying somebody, you're not really alive."
-- Margaret
Atwood
Author: Whittingham, P
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:34627#174731
I personally feel that features like event gateway, once we 'understand' its
details will have features to integrate 3rd party vendors. I am curious how
Sean Cornfield implemented it against Oracle Financial, since we have a similar
situation. I can see a given gateway being 'built' against maybe an OLAP or
Content Management sysytem.
Patrick Whittingham
In regards to the event gateway feature I respectfully disagree with you...I
think it will be quite useful for intermediate to advanced CF folk. Time will
tell.
How bout we move on folks...
Stace
________________________________________
Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2004 1:42 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: BLACKSTONE: Software Development Times Article
> the Event Gateway decouples a cfmx app from the browser -- that means:
>
It does no such thing since a CFML application was never coupled with the
browser in the first place.
> 1) you can run a cf app anywhere that meets the requirements
>
You can do that now.
> 2) The CF developer will be able to apply the CF advantages to a much,
> much broader range of applications (web and non-web)
>
You can do that now.
----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----
There are a ton of solutions commercial, free, and open source that take
care of deployment and administration issues already. All of these are
better suited to the task than CFML and will continue to be even if with the
addition of an event gateway. The problem in this case was never that CFML
was hampered by a browser interface, but that CFML is the wrong tool for the
job in the first place.
> CFML isn't perfect (yet) but it is superior to any scripting (and most
> programming) languages that I have used (and I have used a few). I
> would like to see CFML become the lingua franca of scripting languages.
>
I disagree. CFML is well suited for what it was designed for. In fact, I
would go as far as to say that CFML is the best scripting language available
for web-based projects. However, don't confuse how wonderful CFML is in the
web world with its potential in other application domains. Each tool has its
place and it is important to understand where CFML fits in.
-Matt
________________________________________
_____
Author: Stacy Young
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:34627#174725
In regards to the event gateway feature I respectfully disagree with you...I
think it will be quite useful for intermediate to advanced CF folk. Time will
tell.
How bout we move on folks...
Stace
________________________________________
Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2004 1:42 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: BLACKSTONE: Software Development Times Article
> the Event Gateway decouples a cfmx app from the browser -- that means:
>
It does no such thing since a CFML application was never coupled with the
browser in the first place.
> 1) you can run a cf app anywhere that meets the requirements
>
You can do that now.
> 2) The CF developer will be able to apply the CF advantages to a much,
> much broader range of applications (web and non-web)
>
You can do that now.
----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----
There are a ton of solutions commercial, free, and open source that take
care of deployment and administration issues already. All of these are
better suited to the task than CFML and will continue to be even if with the
addition of an event gateway. The problem in this case was never that CFML
was hampered by a browser interface, but that CFML is the wrong tool for the
job in the first place.
> CFML isn't perfect (yet) but it is superior to any scripting (and most
> programming) languages that I have used (and I have used a few). I
> would like to see CFML become the lingua franca of scripting languages.
>
I disagree. CFML is well suited for what it was designed for. In fact, I
would go as far as to say that CFML is the best scripting language available
for web-based projects. However, don't confuse how wonderful CFML is in the
web world with its potential in other application domains. Each tool has its
place and it is important to understand where CFML fits in.
-Matt
________________________________________
Author: Joe Rinehart
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:34627#174703
I think you left off my favorite:
<CFWRITEMYAPPLICATIONFORME>
-joe
Author: Calvin Ward
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:34627#174702
The gist of the below response is fairly common with your emails, Matt.
But CFML is actually only a developer time language, at runtime we are using
Java.
Maybe it can be suited for more. I wouldn't worry so much as folks try these
things out, you never know what creativity and thinking outside the box will gain
everyone, especially the creative thinker themselves.
- Calvin
Subj: RE: BLACKSTONE: Software Development Times Article
> the Event Gateway decouples a cfmx app from the browser -- that means:
>
It does no such thing since a CFML application was never coupled with the
browser in the first place.
> 1) you can run a cf app anywhere that meets the requirements
>
You can do that now.
> 2) The CF developer will be able to apply the CF advantages to a much,
> much broader range of applications (web and non-web)
>
You can do that now.
----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----
There are a ton of solutions commercial, free, and open source that take
care of deployment and administration issues already. All of these are
better suited to the task than CFML and will continue to be even if with the
addition of an event gateway. The problem in this case was never that CFML
was hampered by a browser interface, but that CFML is the wrong tool for the
job in the first place.
> CFML isn't perfect (yet) but it is superior to any scripting (and most
> programming) languages that I have used (and I have used a few). I
> would like to see CFML become the lingua franca of scripting languages.
>
I disagree. CFML is well suited for what it was designed for. In fact, I
would go as far as to say that CFML is the best scripting language available
for web-based projects. However, don't confuse how wonderful CFML is in the
web world with its potential in other application domains. Each tool has its
place and it is important to understand where CFML fits in.
-Matt
Author: Tangorre, Michael
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:34627#174701
Now that was some funny shit. LOL
-Mike
----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----
Author: G
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:34627#174697
I tend to agree with this perspective. CFML is so good at what it does, when we
as web developers are tasked with something completely different, we tend to want
to bend and shape CF in order to perform tasks it is not particularly well suited
to do.
It used to be that this was restricted more to the individual developer, but it
seems more and more that new, official versions of CF are being packaged with
these "tweaks", and presented as core functionality within the language. It's
not always better to do more, if you can't do more, better.
Brian
<snip>
I disagree. CFML is well suited for what it was designed for. In fact, I
would go as far as to say that CFML is the best scripting language available
for web-based projects. However, don't confuse how wonderful CFML is in the
web world with its potential in other application domains. Each tool has its
place and it is important to understand where CFML fits in.
-Matt
Author: Alexander Sherwood
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:34627#174693
At 01:31 PM 8/17/2004, you wrote:
CF Isn't perfect, but BlueDragon is.
Instead of investing in gateways and silly things like flash-based forms, New
Atlanta included the <CFDRYCLEAN> tag.
This is the first Web application server with a truly "mass appeal" feature:
pickup your dry cleaning. You still have to drop it off, but one call to the
<CFDRYCLEAN> tag, and there will be knock at your door...BAM.....cleaned,
pressed and delivered!
Look for other new "mass appeal" features to be released in "Feature Packs". Some
of these will include:
<CFOILCHANGE>
<CFCARWASH>
<CFBRUSHTEETH>
and the most anticipated feature to date:
<CFEZDIVORCE>
Stay tuned...
--
Alex
>CFML isn't perfect (yet) but it is superior to any scripting (and most
>programming) languages that I have used (and I have used a few). I
>would like to see CFML become the lingua franca of scripting languages.
>
>Now, where can I get a JVM for my iPod?
>
>Dick
Author: Matt Liotta
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:34627#174694
> the Event Gateway decouples a cfmx app from the browser -- that means:
>
It does no such thing since a CFML application was never coupled with the
browser in the first place.
> 1) you can run a cf app anywhere that meets the requirements
>
You can do that now.
> 2) The CF developer will be able to apply the CF advantages to a much,
> much broader range of applications (web and non-web)
>
You can do that now.
----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----
There are a ton of solutions commercial, free, and open source that take
care of deployment and administration issues already. All of these are
better suited to the task than CFML and will continue to be even if with the
addition of an event gateway. The problem in this case was never that CFML
was hampered by a browser interface, but that CFML is the wrong tool for the
job in the first place.
> CFML isn't perfect (yet) but it is superior to any scripting (and most
> programming) languages that I have used (and I have used a few). I
> would like to see CFML become the lingua franca of scripting languages.
>
I disagree. CFML is well suited for what it was designed for. In fact, I
would go as far as to say that CFML is the best scripting language available
for web-based projects. However, don't confuse how wonderful CFML is in the
web world with its potential in other application domains. Each tool has its
place and it is important to understand where CFML fits in.
-Matt
Author: Pete Freitag
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:34627#174692
Matt Liotta wrote:
>
> Sure, but the question is always how many. If most people feel that
> way then
> it was a waste of time. If most people don't feel that way then it likely
> wasn't a waste of time. My assertion is that features like Flash-based
> forms
> have much wider appeal.
Let's find out... I just created a new poll on my blog: http://www.petefreitag.com/ (on the bottom of the left menu).
______________________________________
Pete Freitag
http://www.cfdev.com/
Author of the CFMX Developers Cookbook
http://www.petefreitag.com/bookshelf/
Author: Dick Applebaum
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:34627#174691
On Aug 17, 2004, at 10:04 AM, Matt Liotta wrote:
> I didn't state I wouldn't use this feature. I simply responded to the
> notion
> that is an important feature. I don't think it is.
>
Matt
My opinion is just the opposite.
the Event Gateway decouples a cfmx app from the browser -- that means:
1) you can run a cf app anywhere that meets the requirements
2) The CF developer will be able to apply the CF advantages to a much,
much broader range of applications (web and non-web)
3) There are a lot of non-browser things you need to do when setting up
and running an application (define db tables, prime db with initial
data, backup databases, backup the site, dump/check-out portions of the
data for off-line processing, etc). You could kluge together a
solution using CFMs and a browser, but many of these repetitive tasks
don't need (or are hampered by) a browser interface. Better to have a
decoupled language with the power of CFML
CFML isn't perfect (yet) but it is superior to any scripting (and most
programming) languages that I have used (and I have used a few). I
would like to see CFML become the lingua franca of scripting languages.
Now, where can I get a JVM for my iPod?
Dick
Author: Paul Kenney
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:34627#174690
Fair enough.
----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----
Author: Matt Liotta
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:34627#174686
> Matt, I might be wrong here, but I don't think it's Macromedia's intention
> to make it COMPULSORY for you to use the new feature.
>
I don't think anyone even implied that.
> I think you could take almost any aspect of ColdFusion and there would be
> people who would say "I have no idea why they bothered to put that in the
> product - we never use it. What a waste of time THAT was!"
>
Sure, but the question is always how many. If most people feel that way then
it was a waste of time. If most people don't feel that way then it likely
wasn't a waste of time. My assertion is that features like Flash-based forms
have much wider appeal.
> So you wont use this feature. Ok .. Don't. But I'll bet you'll find
> plenty that will make your life better/simpler/more efficient. Every
> version of CF so far as done that for us, and I reckon most of the others
> on
> this list too.
>
I didn't state I wouldn't use this feature. I simply responded to the notion
that is an important feature. I don't think it is.
-Matt
Author: Michael Kear
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:34627#174684
Matt, I might be wrong here, but I don't think it's Macromedia's intention
to make it COMPULSORY for you to use the new feature.
I think you could take almost any aspect of ColdFusion and there would be
people who would say "I have no idea why they bothered to put that in the
product - we never use it. What a waste of time THAT was!"
So you wont use this feature. Ok .. Don't. But I'll bet you'll find
plenty that will make your life better/simpler/more efficient. Every
version of CF so far as done that for us, and I reckon most of the others on
this list too.
Cheers
Mike Kear
Windsor, NSW, Australia
AFP Webworks
http://afpwebworks.com <http://afpwebworks.com/>;
(Organisation with limited resources but specialised expertise.)
_____
Sent: Wednesday, 18 August 2004 2:14 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: BLACKSTONE: Software Development Times Article
Wow, that company was able to do all that without event gateways. They must
be an organization with extensive resources and specialized expertise.
-Matt
Author: Michael Kear
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:34627#174683
I'm sorry .. have I slipped on to some IBM discussion list? All those
acronyms - actually no I can't be a IBM list because many of the acronyms
have more than 3 letters. Must be a unix list. How did this happen? I
thought we were a ColdFusion list. No?
Cheers
Mike Kear
Windsor, NSW, Australia
AFP Webworks
http://afpwebworks.com
_____
Sent: Wednesday, 18 August 2004 1:41 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: BLACKSTONE: Software Development Times Article
> But I think it is not unrealistic to expect the built-in gateways
> (plus a few extensions that will undoubtedly be released) will do
> the majority of what the majority of developers need. It will be
> a while before the average developer wants more then say IM, SMS,
> SNMP and maybe telnet and IRC. I can even see some demand for
> 'cool stuff' such as MUD gateways, but beyond that?
>
If you get IM and SMS, then SMTP, POP3, and IMAP will be asked for. If you
get Telnet people will want SSH. What about FTP, SFTP, and SCP? Those seem
useful. How many people will want NNTP? Let's not even talk about TCP, UDP,
or ICMP.
Author: Dick Applebaum
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:34627#174679
On Aug 17, 2004, at 9:27 AM, dcooper@macromedia.com
dcooper@macromedia.com wrote:
>
> The Blackstone feature set will without a doubt let CF developers
> think outside the web app box. Web apps are great, but the world is
> increasingly wireless, mobile and instant. Now and in the future, I
> believe the Event Gateway functionality and its extensibility will be
> important for customers to build apps that talk to anything, respond
> to anything, and can do virtually anything.
... and run anywhere... %^)>
----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----
Hear! Hear!
Dick
Author: Dick Applebaum
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:34627#174676
On Aug 17, 2004, at 9:13 AM, Matt Liotta wrote:
> Wow, that company was able to do all that without event gateways. They
> must
> be an organization with extensive resources and specialized expertise.
No, Matt, just a small very-talented staff.
This was CF 3.x
The person who conceived and implemented this is Jason Barney.
He was CTO of the company & one of the most talented people I have
encountered on the net.
AIR, he was doing so much in those early days of (acceptance of) CF
that Allaire flew him to Boston to pick his brain.
Dick
Author: dcooper
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:34627#174672
>>Hopefully, they won't spend too much time on a feature without mass
appeal.
We're definitely trying to spend our resources as wisely as possible.
We've held back talking about the Event Gateway and IM/SMS feature set during the
early tours, etc for a number of reasons, but you'll be hearing much more about
them.
Since we haven't shown or demoed the amazing Blackstone capabilities Event
Gateways enable, I think you'll want to reserve judgment on their likely
popularity. Ben's teaser File Watcher demo ate one of the CFUG's (the only thing
publicly shown about this feature set so far), definitely shouldn't be used to
judge the likely appeal of this functionality.
The Blackstone feature set will without a doubt let CF developers think outside
the web app box. Web apps are great, but the world is increasingly wireless,
mobile and instant. Now and in the future, I believe the Event Gateway
functionality and its extensibility will be important for customers to build apps
that talk to anything, respond to anything, and can do virtually anything. You
can't have a grand vision like that without being open and extensible, and that's
what we're doing.
Lots of protocols discussed here, but we also want to think about the ones not
yet invented, and proprietary ones as well. Fr the Gateways we ship, I think we
will be able to satisfy most needs. For Gateways and message and event-based
protocols we don't ship in the box, you don't have to wait for us to build them.
CF changed the world once before, spawning and inspiring ASP, JSP and others, and
I think we're positioned to do it again.
Regards,
Damon
Author: Matt Liotta
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:34627#174668
Wow, that company was able to do all that without event gateways. They must
be an organization with extensive resources and specialized expertise.
-Matt
----- 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:34627#174665
Matt Liotta wrote:
----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----
Well, if there really is such great demand for SCP a talented
Java developer could probably make a killing developing a gateway
for that. I wouldn't invest in his business though.
Jochem
Author: Dick Applebaum
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:34627#174663
On Aug 17, 2004, at 8:08 AM, dcooper@macromedia.com
dcooper@macromedia.com wrote:
> We always welcome ideas, so if you have some for Gateways, we'd love
> to hear them. I'm sure if there's demand, there will be enterprising
> 3rd parties anxious to meet the demand. In fact, it's already
> happening :)
>
>
If someone hasn't already done it, Email-driven CFCs:
Trigger an event & invoke a CFC when email is received at a specific
email account
My first CF host provider (iTools, later Zanova) wrote a custom mailer
(circa 1998) where:
1) When you defined an email account you could specify that a cfm be
run when an email was received.
2) AIR, the cfm was passed variables containing all the email parts (as
if a form had been submitted)
This should be easy to implement using cfcs and the event gateway.
I wrote a simple but effective (at the time) app to demo this feature
Send an email to the designated account with a list of stock symbols in
the body.
my cfm would be triggered, retrieve stock quotes from wherever & send a
return email
So, if you were away from your computer, you could use your cell phone
to send the email, and get back stock quotes
But email-driven cfcs offer a lot of possibilities.
They (Zanova) even had the ability to reboot a server with this facility
Dick
Author: Jochem van Dieten
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:34627#174659
dcooper@macromedia.com dcooper@macromedia.com wrote:
> Sweet! Of course you do 2-way as well, so you could respond and DO
something about it from your phone.
Don't wake a sleeping BOFH ;-)
Jochem
Author: Alexander Sherwood
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:34627#174657
At 11:46 AM 8/17/2004, you wrote:
LMAO!
TTFN,
Alex
----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----
Author: Ray Champagne
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:34627#174655
That was the best acronym-ed post this list has ever seen....
Ray
http://www.crystalvision.org
At 11:40 AM 8/17/2004, you wrote:
----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----
Author: Alexander Sherwood
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:34627#174653
At 11:36 AM 8/17/2004, you wrote:
>This seems to be a very hot topic, so, I have to jump on this wagon too :)
>all right, in all earnestness, how about adding a feature to allow a
developer to be able to distribute his/her app (eval copy, expires in 30 days
etc. flexible, so he or she can set any exp. days of choice), now, would this
investment justifiable, how about this? implement it in a way that this feature
does not come with the standard version while developer of interest can purchase
it separately (as a component), I'm just thinking loud here.
How about auto generation of 128-bit encrypted XML-based FuseDoc files? Or
auto-connecting FuseBox .qry files?
This would be awesome.
--
Alex
D & D Name: FuseLord
Doom Handle: FuseKill
Author: Matt Liotta
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:34627#174654
> But I think it is not unrealistic to expect the built-in gateways
> (plus a few extensions that will undoubtedly be released) will do
> the majority of what the majority of developers need. It will be
> a while before the average developer wants more then say IM, SMS,
> SNMP and maybe telnet and IRC. I can even see some demand for
> 'cool stuff' such as MUD gateways, but beyond that?
>
If you get IM and SMS, then SMTP, POP3, and IMAP will be asked for. If you
get Telnet people will want SSH. What about FTP, SFTP, and SCP? Those seem
useful. How many people will want NNTP? Let's not even talk about TCP, UDP,
or ICMP.
-Matt
Author: Chunshen (Don) Li
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:34627#174651
This seems to be a very hot topic, so, I have to jump on this wagon too :)
all right, in all earnestness, how about adding a feature to allow a developer to
be able to distribute his/her app (eval copy, expires in 30 days etc. flexible,
so he or she can set any exp. days of choice), now, would this investment
justifiable, how about this? implement it in a way that this feature does not
come with the standard version while developer of interest can purchase it
separately (as a component), I'm just thinking loud here.
>http://sdtimes.com/news/108/story7.htm
>
>Regards,
>
>Damon
Author: dcooper
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:34627#174649
Sweet! Of course you do 2-way as well, so you could respond and DO something
about it from your phone.
>A SNMP trap gateway. Mainly receiving, so I can forward traps
>collected by the SNMP gateway through the SMS gateway to my
>mobile phone, but sending traps might be usefull for people who
>want to tie their CF servers into monitoring tools like HP OpenView.
>
>Jochem
Author: Jochem van Dieten
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:34627#174647
Matt Liotta wrote:
----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----
Small.
But I think it is not unrealistic to expect the built-in gateways
(plus a few extensions that will undoubtedly be released) will do
the majority of what the majority of developers need. It will be
a while before the average developer wants more then say IM, SMS,
SNMP and maybe telnet and IRC. I can even see some demand for
'cool stuff' such as MUD gateways, but beyond that?
Jochem
Author: Micha Schopman
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:34627#174646
If Macromedia provides us with the tools, to create such, I see no
problem. Maybe it would become in like
<cf_eventgateway
action="create"
event="network/io/db/memory/etc"
task="cfc">
And the use CFC's to handle the events. So the gateway only is a
observer, and triggers cfc's to take action upon which event has been
provided to the observer.
Micha Schopman
Software Engineer
Modern Media, Databankweg 12 M, 3821 AL Amersfoort
Tel 033-4535377, Fax 033-4535388
KvK Amersfoort 39081679, Rabo 39.48.05.380
Author: Adam Haskell
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:34627#174645
If the source code is provided I think it is likely that more people
will try to develop their own if the situation arises where they need
something different. I know sometimes people just need a solid
starting block, though I agree with Matt's skepticism.
Adam
On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 10:26:56 -0400, dcooper@macromedia.com
dcooper@macromedia.com <dcooper@macromedia.com> wrote:
----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----
Author: dcooper
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:34627#174643
I would think you guys would be excited by this new functionality and what this
will mean for you and your customers. Am I missing something here?
Author: Jochem van Dieten
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:34627#174641
dcooper@macromedia.com dcooper@macromedia.com wrote:
>
> We always welcome ideas, so if you have some for Gateways, we'd love to hear
them.
A SNMP trap gateway. Mainly receiving, so I can forward traps
collected by the SNMP gateway through the SMS gateway to my
mobile phone, but sending traps might be usefull for people who
want to tie their CF servers into monitoring tools like HP OpenView.
Jochem
Author: Matt Liotta
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:34627#174640
> Matt, what exactly is your point... besides that the Event Gateway
> isn't that great of an idea? Are you just trying to be contrary?
>
I thought I stated my point clearly; the event gateway doesn't seem that
interesting of a feature for the greater CFML community especially when
compared to the ability to create Flash-based forms or produce PDFs or even
to deploy on .NET. Those features seem to have mass appeal.
Macromedia is always pointing out how they have fixed resources meaning if
they do one feature they can't do another. Hopefully, they won't spend too
much time on a feature without mass appeal.
-Matt
Author: Matt Liotta
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:34627#174639
It is always nice to see marketing speak on a technical mailing list. I
never realized that the tiny startup I worked for back in 1998 who had an
intern connect our CFML application to a message queue would be considered
an organization with extensive resources and specialized expertise.
-Matt
----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----
Author: Paul Kenney
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:34627#174637
Matt, what exactly is your point... besides that the Event Gateway
isn't that great of an idea? Are you just trying to be contrary?
----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----
Author: dcooper
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:34627#174636
Analogies aside, the Event Gateway makes CF natively extensible and enables
capabilities previously only available to organizations with access to extensive
resources and specialized expertise.
The best part is you'll be able to build these apps (or add these capabilities to
existing apps) literally in about 5 minutes with Blackstone.
Hopefully we can once again make CF developers heroes in their companies and the
envy of their peers. :)
We always welcome ideas, so if you have some for Gateways, we'd love to hear
them. I'm sure if there's demand, there will be enterprising 3rd parties anxious
to meet the demand. In fact, it's already happening :)
It's going to be a good time to be a CFMX developer.
Reards,
Damon
Author: Samuel R. Neff
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:34627#174635
If what you need to do is integrate with SMS, IM, Sockets, or any of the
built-in gateways, then the chances it does what you need are really good.
Sam
----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----
Author: Matt Liotta
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:34627#174634
> A similar analogy might be the use vs creation of a JDBC driver:
>
> You definitely want to use one, but you probably don't want to write one.
>
I completely disagree. What possible reason would a CFML developer have for
creating a JDBC driver? Every major database provides one, Macromedia
provides a set, and there are various open source ones. In short, a CFML
developer may pick an appropriate JDBC driver, but would never consider
building one simply because all the needed drivers already exist.
Compare this with an event gateway, which is still undefined, so the only
possibly supplier will be Macromedia. Will Macromedia provide an event
gateway for every need? I doubt it and you don't seem to be indicating that
anyway. Thus, it is possible and likely that a CFML developer will want an
event gateway that is not provided.
-Matt
Author: dcooper
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:34627#174633
This is one of our sample Gateways provided for demonstration purposes and is
provided with source code. It will likely be useful for some folks, however.
When you give folks an open API, it sometimes surprising what they dream and come
up with!
----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----
Author: dcooper
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:34627#174632
A similar analogy might be the use vs creation of a JDBC driver:
You definitely want to use one, but you probably don't want to write one.
The Gateways we provide will be well suited to their tasks, well tested, highly
scalable and robust. But we recognize it's a big world out there, and there may
be new services, protocols or events (some maybe not yet invented) that you might
want to talk with directly to enable your CFML apps to communicate with.
In these cases, we left the door open for 3rd party vendors or advanced shops.
Regards,
Damon
Author: Matt Liotta
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:34627#174631
> Of course, the architecture is extensible, so if you need a Gateway to
> something and we don't include it, if you have Java skills, you can build
> your own for CFML developers to use.
>
That is the key point, it requires Java skills if one of the built-in
gateways doesn't do what you need. What is the likelihood of the built-in
gateways doing everything you need?
-Matt
Author: Matt Liotta
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:34627#174630
> The article says that you can set up a hot folder -- any time
> something is saved/changes in the folder it can fire a gateway event
> that triggers a CFC. ... no JMS there
>
How is that new? You can do that today without an event gateway.
-Matt
Author: dcooper
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:34627#174623
Building Event Gateway based 1-way (push or pull) and 2-way interactive and
session-aware Instant Messaging and cell phone SMS apps require only knowledge of
CFML. No Java knowledge is preferred or required.
Of course, the architecture is extensible, so if you need a Gateway to something
and we don't include it, if you have Java skills, you can build your own for CFML
developers to use.
But I'd like to stress the point: no JMS or Java experience or knowledge is
required to build these new types of apps.
Just understand and get familiar with CFC's and you're all set.
Regards,
Damon
----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----
Author: Dick Applebaum
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:34627#174578
It is a lot more that JMS!
The article says that you can set up a hot folder -- any time
something is saved/changes in the folder it can fire a gateway event
that triggers a CFC. ... no JMS there
Dick
On Aug 16, 2004, at 7:31 PM, Chris Johnston wrote:
----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----
Author: Chris Johnston
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:34627#174563
> Huh? The article is primarily about the Event Gateway architecture and
> doesn't even mention JMS once. The Event Gateway stuff is about SMS and IM
> integration, listening on sockets, and asynchronous CFC calls. All great
> stuff that I'd use a lot in my CF development (particularly async calls).
Dumb question, but isn't that what JMS does?
--
chris johnston
www.fuzzylizard.com
"For millions of years, mankind lived just like the animals and
something happened which unleashed the power of our imagination, we
learned to talk."
Pink Floyd
Author: Dick Applebaum
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:34627#174562
Matt
I am with Sam here. It's about the Event Gateway. Presumably,
anything that can create an event can initiate a CFC that need not be
coupled with a browser (or anything, for that matter). JMS is only one
(of many) ways to create an event.
I, personally, am very jazzed about this!
Dick
On Aug 16, 2004, at 7:15 PM, Samuel R. Neff wrote:
----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----
Author: Samuel R. Neff
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:34627#174560
Huh? The article is primarily about the Event Gateway architecture and
doesn't even mention JMS once. The Event Gateway stuff is about SMS and IM
integration, listening on sockets, and asynchronous CFC calls. All great
stuff that I'd use a lot in my CF development (particularly async calls).
Sam
----------------------------------------
Blog http://www.rewindlife.com
TeamMM http://www.macromedia.com/go/team
----------------------------------------
----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----
Author: Matt Liotta
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:34627#174559
> Seriously, IMO, the gateway is one of the most significant (sleaper)
> features of Blackstone.
>
It will probably be a sleeper feature in that not many people use it. The
amount of JMS use in J2EE web applications is rather low. Why would CFML web
applications need this kind of functionality more than Java developers? I
have never used a message queue outside of an enterprise integration
project.
Anyway, if you remember one of the most hyped features of CFMX was cfimport,
which "gives CFML developers access to thousands of JSP tab libraries." How
many people are using cfimport for that purpose? It is clear to me that
anything in CFML that requires knowledge of Java instantly lowers the
potential market by a huge factor. For most folks the importance of CFMX's
support for J2EE was simply the ability to deploy CFML applications on J2EE.
If you ask me, the big new features will be Flash-based forms and the
ability to easily create PDF files. Of course, BlueDragon's support for .NET
could be this year's biggest CFML feature.
-Matt
Author: Dick Applebaum
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:34627#174555
Mmmmm....
Maybe we'll have distributed computing of CFML apps and CFCs across
multiple CPUs on one of those supercomputers they construct by
networking thousands of PC (Preferably MAcs).
Anybody up for calculating pi to n+1 significant decimals? Using CFML?
Seriously, IMO, the gateway is one of the most significant (sleaper)
features of Blackstone.
Dick
On Aug 16, 2004, at 4:27 PM, dcooper@macromedia.com
dcooper@macromedia.com wrote:
> http://sdtimes.com/news/108/story7.htm
>
> Regards,
>
> Damon
Author: dcooper
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:34627#174525
http://sdtimes.com/news/108/story7.htm
Regards,
Damon
|
May 24, 2012
|
Latest Fusion Authority Articles
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
