Home of the ColdFusion Community
|
Mailing Lists
|
Home /
Groups /
ColdFusion Talk (CF-Talk)
Bluedragon = open source
Author: Gerald Guido
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:55485#301467
Thanx Adam. Jboss is a bit daunting at first. I am so used to Tomcat.
Everything seems to be popping up BD these days. We are all very excited
about this at our shop. We have using MM/Adobe CF for years and are taking a
*very* serious look at BD. We really want to move towards a Java platform.
Selling Adobe CF is one thing but selling CF Enterprise is quite another.
Especially with the recession looming in the minds of the bean counters and
a FOSS minded CEO.
Again thanx,
G
----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----
Author: Adam Haskell
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:55485#301463
I know my entry is not for Railo but the directions I have posted could
easily be used to get Railo running on Jboss. I hope this helps introduce a
few people to Jboss Eclipse and their choice of CFML engines.
http://cfrant.blogspot.com/2008/03/jboss-eclipse-and-bluedragon.html
Adam Haskell
----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----
Author: Mary Jo Sminkey
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:55485#301095
>See that's the problem. Everyone is more than happy to jump on the band
>wagon *after* there is a mature solution which is worth their time.
>However, the chicken precedes the egg here, and the chicken is a
>community of developers willing to put in months (or years) of work to
>get a product to that point. I fear our community doesn't have enough
>of those people willing to roll up their Java/.NET sleeves and make open
>source CF really fly.
Actually, what we really need is simply more people to use these other servers
and give them support. I do a lot to promote BlueDragon to my users when they are
looking for alternatives, and am putting a lot of time right now into testing on
Railo and making that a good option for them as well. I've not looked at Smith
Project in a while, but can certainly look at that in the future if it looks
viable for complex applications as well. The more people that use these servers
with different types of sites, the more we as a community can flesh out the
problems, and make sure that they *are* fully compatible and will not give people
headaches if they move over from ColdFusion. There's also other ways people can
help with open source projects, other than just code...as much as I'm a fan of
Railo, the documentation really does suck big time, and I'd love to see them get
someone to do nothing but work on clear, well-written documentation on installing
and using the server, as I do think it's the biggest stumbling block for people
that are not easily able to figure things out themselves.
Author: Russ
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:55485#301092
Actually the support I'm talking about IS enterprise support, and it is in a
lot of cases, utterly useless. I'm not even mentioning consumer level
support, which can probably be replaced with a nice AI that follows the same
exact script they do. They are not trained to think. They are trained to
search for the problem you are having in their knowledgebase, and then guide
you through the script. Higher level support is often better though
While enterprise support might be ok, you will often find better support on
mailing lists as they have more people, and more likely that someone has
faced the issue before. Also, since the software is free, it has been used
by more people. Not everyone, for example, can afford to buy Oracle, so the
number of installs would be smaller then MySQL, and therefore it's less
likely that someone came across a problem that you were having with Oracle
as opposed to a problem you were having with MySQL.
Russ
----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----
Author: Brad Wood
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:55485#301091
I would suggest checking out MySQL and what they do with it... The way
they do it...if you need support (and several other features not
available in the free version), you pay for licensing.
==================================
And pay you do! MySQL Enterprise Platinum is $4,999 USD /Server/Year.
On the subject of supporting your own installs. Sometimes I don't think
"community support" is all it's cracked up to be. I think our CF
community does a good job, but wading through 1000's of message boards
and being told to "RTFM" is not my idea of a good time. That being
said, I use several open source softwares like MySQL, but only for my
personal stuff.
~Brad
Author: Eric Roberts
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:55485#301088
On the consumer level, you are correct. Having worked in that industry (did
support for Belkin wireless products, BFG Graphic cards, Scientific Atlanta
cable boxes, Best data Modems/Diamond Video products, as well as enterprise
level networking support for CDW, I would very much agree that consumer
level support suck you know what. Most tech support people are poorly
trained and are given very little information to help solve consumer issues.
Enterprise level support is different. They tend to be people who are
knowledgeable in what they are supported, and fairly well trained for the
job (especially since most of the support at this level is paid).
While user forums and mailing lists are very helpful, sometimes that can be
completely useless. Even this list, which has been awesome and many people
on this list bend over backwards to help people with questions they have, I
have had more than a few questions go unanswered. This list is also a lot
better than most, so on other list, more often than not, I have unanswered
questions or questions that the others on the list don't have a clue. That
is something that won't happen with enterprise level support. The only time
I have seen it take days or weeks is if there is a serious issue that
involves a major bug in the code. That is why companies use paid support.
Eric
/*-----Original Message-----
/*
/*Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 12:59 PM
/*To: CF-Talk
/*Subject: RE: Bluedragon = open source
/*
/*Personally, I try to use open source software when I can, and don't use
/*paid
/*support ever. I find no need to use paid support when there is so much
/*information available on the web. I also find that there is more and
/*better
/*support available for open source projects. The users and developers
/*mailing lists can be invaluable, and being able to look at the source
/*helps
/*too sometimes.
/*
/*From experience of friends and family, I have noticed that paid support is
/*utterly useless. They almost never come through, and things that take me
/*about 10 minutes to do take weeks to get done through paid support, and
/*even
/*then they're not done properly.
/*
/*Just my $0.02.
/*
/*RUss
/*
/*> -----Original Message-----
/*
/*> Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 1:50 PM
/*> To: CF-Talk
/*> Subject: RE: Bluedragon = open source
/*>
/*> I would suggest checking out MySQL and what they do with it...
/*>
/*> The way they do it...if you need support (and several other features not
/*> available in the free version), you pay for licensing. If you don't
/*need
/*> this, then you can use it for free.
/*>
/*> Most companies want and need the support. That is where these companies
/*> make their money. As a business, you want to be able to have someone
/*you
/*> can call and say, my server is down and I need help to get it running
/*asap
/*> so it doesn't effect my business. This gives you that option.
/*>
/*> If you feel you can handle everything yourself...then by all means use
/*it
/*> for free :-D
/*>
/*> The other benefit is that when there is an open source/free version, you
/*> don't have to pay to have copies for your development, testing, and QA
/*> environments. It allows you to have the same exact environment (not one
/*> with limited connections or other things with their wings clipped) as
/*your
/*> production environment. It also becomes pretty expensive when you have
/*to
/*> buy licenses for 4 sets of servers if you have the above model. A 7k
/*> dollar
/*> product now becomes a 28k dollar product when only one of those servers
/*is
/*> actually producing revenue. I think that seriously encourages people to
/*> use
/*> a product when they can do that. I hope Adobe follows suit.
/*>
/*> Eric
/*>
/*> /*-----Original Message-----
/*> /*
/*> /*Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 12:50 AM
/*> /*To: CF-Talk
/*> /*Subject: Re: Bluedragon = open source
/*> /*
/*> /*On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 2:14 PM, Jordan Michaels
/*<jordan@viviotech.net>
/*> /*wrote:
/*> /*> Precisely, and I really do hope that this is the case. The only
/*> caveat
/*> /*> would be how NA's Dual-Licensing would work - and that's why I'm
/*> really
/*> /*> anxious to see the details there.
/*> /*
/*> /*I'm not sure what your concern is here? Lots of companies use
/*> /*dual-licensing: free open source version and a fully-supported,
/*> /*non-free, commercial version. That's pretty standard these days. NA
/*> /*are using GPLv2 so you can go read that (it's a standard open source
/*> /*license).
/*> /*--
/*> /*Sean A Corfield -- (904) 302-SEAN
/*> /*An Architect's View -- http://corfield.org/
/*> /*
/*> /*"If you're not annoying somebody, you're not really alive."
/*> /*-- Margaret Atwood
/*> /*
/*> /*
/*>
/*>
/*
/*
Author: Eric Roberts
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:55485#301087
I think there is more than a large enough market...one that could increase
with competition.
Eric
/*-----Original Message-----
/*
/*Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 6:34 AM
/*To: CF-Talk
/*Subject: RE: Bluedragon = open source
/*
/*Seriously,
/*
/*Adobe own CF, they can do what they want, everyone else is attempting to
/*copy this. If NA go off and add new features, they can't expect Adobe to
/*copy them, that makes no sense.
/*
/*I don't think there is enough of a market to support so many clones
/*getting
/*any decent market share.
/*
/*Regards
/*Dale Fraser
/*
/*-----Original Message-----
/*
/*Sent: Wednesday, 12 March 2008 11:22 PM
/*To: CF-Talk
/*Subject: Re: Bluedragon = open source
/*
/*>Adobe is not selling a CFML engine. Adobe is selling ColdFusion. Adobe
/*>hasn't standardized CFML, and has no responsibility to any other vendor
/*>selling CFML engines. You can argue that those other vendors likewise
/*have
/*>no responsibility to Adobe, and I'd agree, but if you build a product
/*that
/*>provides compatibility with someone else's product as its chief feature,
/*the
/*>onus is on you to provide that compatibility.
/*
/*Nobody could argue that NA haven't made every reasonable effort to ensure
/*compatibility between BlueDragon and CFMX - as you point out, that's the
/*business they're in. But when Adobe willingly breaks compatibility with
/*BlueDragon by implementing a BD feature in a non-compatible manner, i
/*think
/*it is biased to claim that NA is responsible for resolving the resulting
/*incompatibility. Most of us get upset when Microsoft abuses its dominant
/*market position like this, i for one fail to see how Adobe is any
/*different
/*in this case.
/*
/*
/*
/*
Author: Eric Roberts
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:55485#301086
They don't have to, but if they did something like this, they would keep the
dev community happy and happy developers make great unpaid salesmen for
Adobe.
/*-----Original Message-----
/*
/*Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 5:02 AM
/*To: CF-Talk
/*Subject: Re: Bluedragon = open source
/*
/*
/*> atitude time and again in the CF community: when Adobe introduces new
/*> syntax it's innovative, but when another vendor does it's disruptive.
/*Last
/*
/*Adobe 'own' CFML (the language). They can do what they like and still
/*claim to
/*be 'compatable'.
/*
/*> year some Adobe fanboy was bitching out the NA list because the syntax
/*of
/*> the cfthread tag is different in BD 7 and CF 8 - only to have it come to
/*> light that NA implemented cfthread before Adobe, and that it was up to
/*> Adobe to maintain compatibility.
/*
/*From their PoV, someone else made a change to the language with out asking
/*them (who own it). Why should they change, I suppose.
/*
/*> > least they could do would be to set up some sort of language
standard,
/*> > and a
/*> > public process to get it altered.
/*>
/*> Unlikely, IMHO. They have nothing to gain and everything to lose. What
/*> you're proposing just makes it easier for others to compete with them.
/*
/*Happier developers benefit the whole 'eco-system'. And Adobe *is* giving
/*something like this control in other products to the community.
/*
/*--
/*Tom Chiverton
/*Helping to elementarily incubate prospective architectures
/*on: http://thefalken.livejournal.com
/*
/*****************************************************
/*
/*This email is sent for and on behalf of Halliwells LLP.
/*
/*Halliwells LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in England
/*and Wales under registered number OC307980 whose registered office address
/*is at Halliwells LLP, 3 Hardman Square, Spinningfields, Manchester, M3
/*3EB. A list of members is available for inspection at the registered
/*office. Any reference to a partner in relation to Halliwells LLP means a
/*member of Halliwells LLP. Regulated by The Solicitors Regulation
/*Authority.
/*
/*CONFIDENTIALITY
/*
/*This email is intended only for the use of the addressee named above and
/*may be confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the addressee
/*you must not read it and must not use any information contained in nor
/*copy it nor inform any person other than Halliwells LLP or the addressee
/*of its existence or contents. If you have received this email in error
/*please delete it and notify Halliwells LLP IT Department on 0870 365 2500.
/*
/*For more information about Halliwells LLP visit www.halliwells.com.
/*
/*
Author: Eric Roberts
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:55485#301085
How are they not selling the engine? If they were selling just the language
then BD would ne be able to use the language, without licensing. Without
the engine, the language is pretty useless.
I think the responsibility lies with both as their responsibility is to
their customers. A standardized environment is beneficial to all. What
might be a good idea is for each company to sell "tag packs" that would
update he other with tags (and tag differences) from the other...then
everyone gets to make money ;-)
Eric
/*-----Original Message-----
/*
/*Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 4:58 AM
/*To: CF-Talk
/*Subject: RE: Bluedragon = open source
/*
/*> See, that's exactly what i'm talking about. If another
/*> company adds a feature *before* Adobe does, then how is it
/*> not the responsibility of Adobe to maintain compatibility
/*> when they themselves add the same feature? Should the other
/*> company in question break backwards compatibility with their
/*> own code just to match Adobe's implementation? Once again we
/*> see the position that only Adobe is allowed to innovate in
/*> this area.
/*
/*Adobe is not selling a CFML engine. Adobe is selling ColdFusion. Adobe
/*hasn't standardized CFML, and has no responsibility to any other vendor
/*selling CFML engines. You can argue that those other vendors likewise have
/*no responsibility to Adobe, and I'd agree, but if you build a product that
/*provides compatibility with someone else's product as its chief feature,
/*the
/*onus is on you to provide that compatibility.
/*
/*Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
/*http://www.figleaf.com/
/*
/*Fig Leaf Training: Adobe/Google/Paperthin Certified Partners
/*http://training.figleaf.com/
/*
/*WebManiacs 2008: the ultimate conference for CF/Flex/AIR developers!
/*http://www.webmaniacsconference.com/
/*
/*
Author: Eric Roberts
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:55485#301084
Sean Said:
Since Adobe (Macromedia / Allaire) created ColdFusion, I don't think they
have any responsibility to "maintain compatibility" since they created the
de facto standard. The burden is on other companies to build compatible CFML
engines, IMO. Nor do Adobe have any incentive to create a common standard
definition of CFML - as you said, that would simply make it easier for other
companies to build compatible CFML engines.
Sean,
I would disagree with you on this in spirit. While there is no real or
legal responsibility for them to maintain compatibility, It would behoove
them to do so (yes...the true responsibility does lie with the other
companies...but I do think that Adobe should lead the way). If they try to
bring BD users over to Adobe, wouldn't it be a lot easier if they were able
to say you can migrate over to our engine without having to modify the code?
Make the selling points be things in relation to the engine like efficiency,
stability, etc more than the code. While it would make it easier for other
companies to create CF engines, they should also recognize that the
competition does everyone good as it keeps the language fresh and
competitive with other languages and inspires product innovation and
improvement. This also would keep the developers happy too...something they
should be actively trying to do as we are the best salesmen they have.
Maybe a CF standards organization is in order?
Eric
Author: Russ
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:55485#301083
Personally, I try to use open source software when I can, and don't use paid
support ever. I find no need to use paid support when there is so much
information available on the web. I also find that there is more and better
support available for open source projects. The users and developers
mailing lists can be invaluable, and being able to look at the source helps
too sometimes.
From experience of friends and family, I have noticed that paid support is
utterly useless. They almost never come through, and things that take me
about 10 minutes to do take weeks to get done through paid support, and even
then they're not done properly.
Just my $0.02.
RUss
----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----
Author: Eric Roberts
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:55485#301082
I would suggest checking out MySQL and what they do with it...
The way they do it...if you need support (and several other features not
available in the free version), you pay for licensing. If you don't need
this, then you can use it for free.
Most companies want and need the support. That is where these companies
make their money. As a business, you want to be able to have someone you
can call and say, my server is down and I need help to get it running asap
so it doesn't effect my business. This gives you that option.
If you feel you can handle everything yourself...then by all means use it
for free :-D
The other benefit is that when there is an open source/free version, you
don't have to pay to have copies for your development, testing, and QA
environments. It allows you to have the same exact environment (not one
with limited connections or other things with their wings clipped) as your
production environment. It also becomes pretty expensive when you have to
buy licenses for 4 sets of servers if you have the above model. A 7k dollar
product now becomes a 28k dollar product when only one of those servers is
actually producing revenue. I think that seriously encourages people to use
a product when they can do that. I hope Adobe follows suit.
Eric
/*-----Original Message-----
/*
/*Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 12:50 AM
/*To: CF-Talk
/*Subject: Re: Bluedragon = open source
/*
/*On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 2:14 PM, Jordan Michaels <jordan@viviotech.net>
/*wrote:
/*> Precisely, and I really do hope that this is the case. The only caveat
/*> would be how NA's Dual-Licensing would work - and that's why I'm really
/*> anxious to see the details there.
/*
/*I'm not sure what your concern is here? Lots of companies use
/*dual-licensing: free open source version and a fully-supported,
/*non-free, commercial version. That's pretty standard these days. NA
/*are using GPLv2 so you can go read that (it's a standard open source
/*license).
/*--
/*Sean A Corfield -- (904) 302-SEAN
/*An Architect's View -- http://corfield.org/
/*
/*"If you're not annoying somebody, you're not really alive."
/*-- Margaret Atwood
/*
/*
Author: Tom Chiverton
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:55485#301073
> I sure hope I'm wrong-- I really do; but I think "Successful Open
> Sourced CF" is a utopia many of us long for, but few of us would
> actually get dirty for.
I'm not sure many of us have the depth of Java knowledge that would be
required.
See also CFEclipse.
--
Tom Chiverton
Helping to administratively iterate plug-and-play content
on: http://thefalken.livejournal.com
****************************************************
This email is sent for and on behalf of Halliwells LLP.
Halliwells LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales
under registered number OC307980 whose registered office address is at Halliwells
LLP, 3 Hardman Square, Spinningfields, Manchester, M3 3EB. A list of members is
available for inspection at the registered office. Any reference to a partner in
relation to Halliwells LLP means a member of Halliwells LLP. Regulated by The
Solicitors Regulation Authority.
CONFIDENTIALITY
This email is intended only for the use of the addressee named above and may be
confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the addressee you must not
read it and must not use any information contained in nor copy it nor inform any
person other than Halliwells LLP or the addressee of its existence or contents.
If you have received this email in error please delete it and notify Halliwells
LLP IT Department on 0870 365 2500.
For more information about Halliwells LLP visit
www.halliwells.com.
Author: Brad Wood
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:55485#301071
See that's the problem. Everyone is more than happy to jump on the band
wagon *after* there is a mature solution which is worth their time.
However, the chicken precedes the egg here, and the chicken is a
community of developers willing to put in months (or years) of work to
get a product to that point. I fear our community doesn't have enough
of those people willing to roll up their Java/.NET sleeves and make open
source CF really fly.
I sure hope I'm wrong-- I really do; but I think "Successful Open
Sourced CF" is a utopia many of us long for, but few of us would
actually get dirty for.
~Brad
I remember last time I looked at the CF alternatives, BD was the only
one
that seemed mature. Others seemed to be either in early stages or have
started charging and at that point weren't worth the trouble switching
to
IMHO.
A free CFML engine that's fairly compatible with Adobe's engine would be
a
great thing IMHO.
Author: Sean Corfield
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:55485#301067
> No, the person i was talking about is a certain Paul Vernon (NA's site is
up, just checked).
OK, I don't remember the thread then. I'll go read up on it.
> See, that's exactly what i'm talking about. If another company adds a
feature *before* Adobe does, then how is it not the responsibility of Adobe to
maintain compatibility when they themselves add the same feature?
Because Adobe has the luxury of more resources to design and test a
better version of the feature that is more in line with what their
customers want? Railo, for example, have implemented a few things
ahead of Adobe and have then gone back and changed their
implementation to match Adobe's. On the subject of cfthread, Vince @
NA specifically offered for BlueDragon's implementation to change to
become compatible with Adobe's (by adding features to allow both NA's
original implementation and an Adobe-compatible implementation).
Like it or not, Adobe define ColdFusion - the product and the language
- and other vendors who make a "compatible" product are either
compatible with Adobe's product or they're not. Companies / customers
don't care whether Adobe's product is compatible with any of the other
CFML engines. That's just a fact of life, I'm afraid.
--
Sean A Corfield -- (904) 302-SEAN
An Architect's View -- http://corfield.org/
"If you're not annoying somebody, you're not really alive."
-- Margaret
Atwood
Author: Kenneth Ferguson
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:55485#301056
You seem to be overlooking the very basic fact that NA is well aware of the fact
that anything they add may well have compatibility issues as new versions of CF
come out. I don't think you'll ever hear this complaint coming from NA
themselves; they knew it going in. The complaint comes from people who use NA's
CFML engine. These people "should" have known that this sort of problem was very
probable to occur. Adobe would be ill advised to plan any of their development of
CF features around the additions other companies have made to their CFML engines.
From now on, I want you to know that it's very likely you'll run into similar
issues of compatibility between BD and CF. Complain to the people at NA and I'm
certain that they'll tell you the same thing, with some added thought that they
do their best to minimize the occurrences...
--Ferg
>Adobe is not selling a CFML engine. Adobe is selling ColdFusion. Adobe
>hasn't standardized CFML, and has no responsibility to any other vendor
>selling CFML engines. You can argue that those other vendors likewise have
>no responsibility to Adobe, and I'd agree, but if you build a product that
>provides compatibility with someone else's product as its chief feature, the
>onus is on you to provide that compatibility.
Nobody could argue that NA haven't made every reasonable effort to ensure
compatibility between BlueDragon and CFMX - as you point out, that's the business
they're in. But when Adobe willingly breaks compatibility with BlueDragon by
implementing a BD feature in a non-compatible manner, i think it is biased to
claim that NA is responsible for resolving the resulting incompatibility. Most of
us get upset when Microsoft abuses its dominant market position like this, i for
one fail to see how Adobe is any different in this case.
Author: Dave Watts
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:55485#301053
----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----
Adobe owns the original implementation of CFML, and because there's no
external standard for what CFML is, it is what they say it is. Comparing
this to what Microsoft does is silly, because ColdFusion is not an operating
system - other CFML vendors are not relying on Adobe to provide them an
environment in which their products can run. And, frankly, Adobe has no
incentive to cooperate with other CFML vendors.
If, in some fantastic future, NA becomes the dominant CFML vendor, then
perhaps Adobe will feel compelled to change.
Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
http://www.figleaf.com/
Fig Leaf Training: Adobe/Google/Paperthin Certified Partners
http://training.figleaf.com/
WebManiacs 2008: the ultimate conference for CF/Flex/AIR developers!
http://www.webmaniacsconference.com/
Author: Dale Fraser
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:55485#301052
Seriously,
Adobe own CF, they can do what they want, everyone else is attempting to
copy this. If NA go off and add new features, they can't expect Adobe to
copy them, that makes no sense.
I don't think there is enough of a market to support so many clones getting
any decent market share.
Regards
Dale Fraser
>Adobe is not selling a CFML engine. Adobe is selling ColdFusion. Adobe
>hasn't standardized CFML, and has no responsibility to any other vendor
>selling CFML engines. You can argue that those other vendors likewise have
>no responsibility to Adobe, and I'd agree, but if you build a product that
>provides compatibility with someone else's product as its chief feature,
the
>onus is on you to provide that compatibility.
Nobody could argue that NA haven't made every reasonable effort to ensure
compatibility between BlueDragon and CFMX - as you point out, that's the
business they're in. But when Adobe willingly breaks compatibility with
BlueDragon by implementing a BD feature in a non-compatible manner, i think
it is biased to claim that NA is responsible for resolving the resulting
incompatibility. Most of us get upset when Microsoft abuses its dominant
market position like this, i for one fail to see how Adobe is any different
in this case.
Author: Tanguy Rademakers
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:55485#301051
>Adobe is not selling a CFML engine. Adobe is selling ColdFusion. Adobe
>hasn't standardized CFML, and has no responsibility to any other vendor
>selling CFML engines. You can argue that those other vendors likewise have
>no responsibility to Adobe, and I'd agree, but if you build a product that
>provides compatibility with someone else's product as its chief feature, the
>onus is on you to provide that compatibility.
Nobody could argue that NA haven't made every reasonable effort to ensure
compatibility between BlueDragon and CFMX - as you point out, that's the business
they're in. But when Adobe willingly breaks compatibility with BlueDragon by
implementing a BD feature in a non-compatible manner, i think it is biased to
claim that NA is responsible for resolving the resulting incompatibility. Most of
us get upset when Microsoft abuses its dominant market position like this, i for
one fail to see how Adobe is any different in this case.
Author: Dan G. Switzer, II
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:55485#301050
----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----
I've always thought BD would have been better served by using the "cfx_"
extension for additions they made to the language. That would at least give
developers who want to use BD as their core language the ability to write
custom tags that could be implemented in other versions of CF. It would seem
to address a lot of issues of compatibility...
-Dan
Author: Tom Chiverton
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:55485#301049
> atitude time and again in the CF community: when Adobe introduces new
> syntax it's innovative, but when another vendor does it's disruptive. Last
Adobe 'own' CFML (the language). They can do what they like and still claim to
be 'compatable'.
> year some Adobe fanboy was bitching out the NA list because the syntax of
> the cfthread tag is different in BD 7 and CF 8 - only to have it come to
> light that NA implemented cfthread before Adobe, and that it was up to
> Adobe to maintain compatibility.
From their PoV, someone else made a change to the language with out asking
them (who own it). Why should they change, I suppose.
----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----
Happier developers benefit the whole 'eco-system'. And Adobe *is* giving
something like this control in other products to the community.
--
Tom Chiverton
Helping to elementarily incubate prospective architectures
on: http://thefalken.livejournal.com
****************************************************
This email is sent for and on behalf of Halliwells LLP.
Halliwells LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales
under registered number OC307980 whose registered office address is at Halliwells
LLP, 3 Hardman Square, Spinningfields, Manchester, M3 3EB. A list of members is
available for inspection at the registered office. Any reference to a partner in
relation to Halliwells LLP means a member of Halliwells LLP. Regulated by The
Solicitors Regulation Authority.
CONFIDENTIALITY
This email is intended only for the use of the addressee named above and may be
confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the addressee you must not
read it and must not use any information contained in nor copy it nor inform any
person other than Halliwells LLP or the addressee of its existence or contents.
If you have received this email in error please delete it and notify Halliwells
LLP IT Department on 0870 365 2500.
For more information about Halliwells LLP visit
www.halliwells.com.
Author: Dave Watts
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:55485#301048
----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----
Adobe is not selling a CFML engine. Adobe is selling ColdFusion. Adobe
hasn't standardized CFML, and has no responsibility to any other vendor
selling CFML engines. You can argue that those other vendors likewise have
no responsibility to Adobe, and I'd agree, but if you build a product that
provides compatibility with someone else's product as its chief feature, the
onus is on you to provide that compatibility.
Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
http://www.figleaf.com/
Fig Leaf Training: Adobe/Google/Paperthin Certified Partners
http://training.figleaf.com/
WebManiacs 2008: the ultimate conference for CF/Flex/AIR developers!
http://www.webmaniacsconference.com/
Author: Tanguy Rademakers
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:55485#301047
> I would hardly describe Peter Farrell as an "Adobe fanboy" especially
> since he was running his site for a long time on BlueDragon!
No, the person i was talking about is a certain Paul Vernon (NA's site is up,
just checked).
----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----
See, that's exactly what i'm talking about. If another company adds a feature
*before* Adobe does, then how is it not the responsibility of Adobe to maintain
compatibility when they themselves add the same feature? Should the other company
in question break backwards compatibility with their own code just to match
Adobe's implementation? Once again we see the position that only Adobe is allowed
to innovate in this area.
Author: Sean Corfield
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:55485#301046
> Last year some Adobe fanboy was bitching out the NA list because the syntax
of the cfthread tag is different in BD 7 and CF 8
If you're talking about Peter Farrell's questions about cfthread (I
can't read the thread - New Atlanta's site is down right now!), it was
to do with trying to provide a version of Mach-II that ran on both BD
7 and CF 8 that could use threading. Some of the differences in
implementation meant that - for Mach-II's intended use - BD's cfthread
was not suitable. In my Edmund framework (which is still in its R&D
infancy) I have full support for both BD 7's cfthread and CF 8's
cfthread - because the common subset of functionality is sufficient
for my needs (in fact BD's cfthread is more permissive than CF 8's
which suits me better).
I would hardly describe Peter Farrell as an "Adobe fanboy" especially
since he was running his site for a long time on BlueDragon!
> only to have it come to light that NA implemented cfthread before Adobe, and
that it was up to Adobe to maintain compatibility.
Since Adobe (Macromedia / Allaire) created ColdFusion, I don't think
they have any responsibility to "maintain compatibility" since they
created the de facto standard. The burden is on other companies to
build compatible CFML engines, IMO. Nor do Adobe have any incentive to
create a common standard definition of CFML - as you said, that would
simply make it easier for other companies to build compatible CFML
engines.
--
Sean A Corfield -- (904) 302-SEAN
An Architect's View -- http://corfield.org/
"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:55485#301045
> Precisely, and I really do hope that this is the case. The only caveat
> would be how NA's Dual-Licensing would work - and that's why I'm really
> anxious to see the details there.
I'm not sure what your concern is here? Lots of companies use
dual-licensing: free open source version and a fully-supported,
non-free, commercial version. That's pretty standard these days. NA
are using GPLv2 so you can go read that (it's a standard open source
license).
--
Sean A Corfield -- (904) 302-SEAN
An Architect's View -- http://corfield.org/
"If you're not annoying somebody, you're not really alive."
-- Margaret Atwood
Author: Larry Lyons
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:55485#301035
JBoss has a regular web server in it. Its very easy to run BlueDragon for J2EE on
Apache. You will need a J2EE app server like JBoss to run BD. That said, its
relatively easy to integrate JBoss/BD with Apache. Steve Brownlee gives a very
good tutorial on this at http://www.fusioncube.net/?p=111. While he
uses CF for this tutorial, the steps are exactly the same for Blue Dragon. I've
been running this combo for internal sites for the last several months without
any problems.
Another alternative is to use the native webserver that's in JBoss. Its not
difficult at all to change the ports from 8080 to port 80.
hth,
larry
----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----
Author: Russ
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:55485#301018
I remember last time I looked at the CF alternatives, BD was the only one
that seemed mature. Others seemed to be either in early stages or have
started charging and at that point weren't worth the trouble switching to
IMHO.
A free CFML engine that's fairly compatible with Adobe's engine would be a
great thing IMHO.
Russ
----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----
Author: Brad Wood
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:55485#301017
If the above is truly their intention, this is HUGE for the CF
Community.
==============================
Trust me-- I am excited to see what this will bring too; however, if an
open source CFML engine is such a door-opener, then why hasn't everyone
jumped on the Smith Project and proliferated CFML to the ends of the
Earth by now?
Smith has been open source since May of last year.
~Brad
Author: Jordan Michaels
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:55485#301015
> Isn't the point of this whole thing to spread the use of cfml, and to such
> end, to have a cfml engine installed on every linux hosting company
offering
> PHP, wouldn't this be where the blue dragon open source version of their
> product is going to be put to the test?
Precisely, and I really do hope that this is the case. The only caveat
would be how NA's Dual-Licensing would work - and that's why I'm really
anxious to see the details there.
If the above is truly their intention, this is HUGE for the CF Community.
Warm regards,
Jordan Michaels
Vivio Technologies
http://www.viviotech.net/
BlueDragon Alliance Member
jordan@viviotech.net
Casey Dougall wrote:
----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----
Author: Casey Dougall
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:55485#301006
Isn't the point of this whole thing to spread the use of cfml, and to such
end, to have a cfml engine installed on every linux hosting company offering
PHP, wouldn't this be where the blue dragon open source version of their
product is going to be put to the test?
Every $5 a month hosting company could have cfml running on it, anything is
better then godaddy cfml hosting. they should be banded.
I may be a bit off here but wouldn't PHP have a steering committee like the
one being formed for HTML5, now there could be one for CFM, it may still be
a bit one sided but hey it's a start.
Casey
----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----
Author: Mark Fuqua
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:55485#300983
I'm pretty sure they meant 'someone' like you or me...that's the idea of NA
having a steering committee to determine what gets included in the code
base...at least that's how I understand it.
----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----
So i guess this means the CFML language is now set in stone forever? Or by
"someone", do you just mean "someone other than Adobe"? I've seen this
atitude time and again in the CF community: when Adobe introduces new syntax
it's innovative, but when another vendor does it's disruptive. Last year
some Adobe fanboy was bitching out the NA list because the syntax of the
cfthread tag is different in BD 7 and CF 8 - only to have it come to light
that NA implemented cfthread before Adobe, and that it was up to Adobe to
maintain compatibility.
Read Vince's reply here:
http://www.newatlanta.com/c/products/bluedragon/self_help/archiveSearch/deta
il?messageId=221043
(yadda yadda wrap)
> If Adobe don't want to open up their ColdFusion server (fair enough),
> the
> least they could do would be to set up some sort of language standard,
> and a
> public process to get it altered.
Unlikely, IMHO. They have nothing to gain and everything to lose. What
you're proposing just makes it easier for others to compete with them.
Author: Chris Jordan
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:55485#300982
Let's give this announcement some link love!
http://www.dzone.com/links/open_source_cfml_engine_on_the_way.html
http://digg.com/software/New_Atlanta_announces_free_open_source_BlueDragon_edition
I'm sure there are others out there. Let's talk this up!
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 1:14 PM, Tanguy Rademakers <
tanguy.rademakers@swift.com> wrote:
----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----
Author: Tanguy Rademakers
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:55485#300980
> Exactly.
> We don't want someone adding <cfFooBar> to their engine, whilst
> another uses
> <cfBarFoo> (or doesn't have it at all). Ideally I can take a project
> and run
> it with no changes on Adobe, or Railo, or Smith, or BD, or ...
So i guess this means the CFML language is now set in stone forever? Or by
"someone", do you just mean "someone other than Adobe"? I've seen this atitude
time and again in the CF community: when Adobe introduces new syntax it's
innovative, but when another vendor does it's disruptive. Last year some Adobe
fanboy was bitching out the NA list because the syntax of the cfthread tag is
different in BD 7 and CF 8 - only to have it come to light that NA implemented
cfthread before Adobe, and that it was up to Adobe to maintain compatibility.
Read Vince's reply here:
http://www.newatlanta.com/c/products/bluedragon/self_help/archiveSearch/detail?messageId=221043
(yadda yadda wrap)
> If Adobe don't want to open up their ColdFusion server (fair enough),
> the
> least they could do would be to set up some sort of language standard,
> and a
> public process to get it altered.
Unlikely, IMHO. They have nothing to gain and everything to lose. What you're
proposing just makes it easier for others to compete with them.
Author: Tanguy Rademakers
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:55485#300970
>But it will be up to New Atlanta and the BlueDragon Open Source
>Steering Committee whether your suggestions will be accepted. Open
>source does not mean that everyone can just pile in and change the
>source. Sure, you could modify your *own* copy to add features - but
>that will just create lots of incompatible engines. Everyone will need
>to work with the process, like Sun's JCP and all the other successful
>open source projects out there.
Or, if you feel strongly enough about it, you fork the project:
http://ask.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=133716&cid=11167571
(watch the wrap)
Author: Tom Chiverton
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:55485#300966
> source. Sure, you could modify your *own* copy to add features - but
> that will just create lots of incompatible engines. Everyone will need
> to work with the process, like Sun's JCP and all the other successful
Exactly.
We don't want someone adding <cfFooBar> to their engine, whilst another
uses
<cfBarFoo> (or doesn't have it at all). Ideally I can take a project and
run
it with no changes on Adobe, or Railo, or Smith, or BD, or ...
We're already seeing this fragmentation (a bit), with things like
<cfhttp addtoken="yes" ....
appearing in Railo but not Adobe's 'official' impl., so anything that makes
use of that is now locked into Railo.
If Adobe don't want to open up their ColdFusion server (fair enough), the
least they could do would be to set up some sort of language standard, and a
public process to get it altered.
*That being said* Adobe do already listen to us with language changes, such as
the new {} syntax and cfinterface.
--
Tom Chiverton
Helping to preemptively build ubiquitous services
on: http://thefalken.livejournal.com
****************************************************
This email is sent for and on behalf of Halliwells LLP.
Halliwells LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales
under registered number OC307980 whose registered office address is at Halliwells
LLP, 3 Hardman Square, Spinningfields, Manchester, M3 3EB. A list of members is
available for inspection at the registered office. Any reference to a partner in
relation to Halliwells LLP means a member of Halliwells LLP. Regulated by The
Solicitors Regulation Authority.
CONFIDENTIALITY
This email is intended only for the use of the addressee named above and may be
confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the addressee you must not
read it and must not use any information contained in nor copy it nor inform any
person other than Halliwells LLP or the addressee of its existence or contents.
If you have received this email in error please delete it and notify Halliwells
LLP IT Department on 0870 365 2500.
For more information about Halliwells LLP visit
www.halliwells.com.
Author: Sean Corfield
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:55485#300965
> > Being open source isn't much one way or the other, tbh.
> Well, if people want to add features that are missing, now they can.
But it will be up to New Atlanta and the BlueDragon Open Source
Steering Committee whether your suggestions will be accepted. Open
source does not mean that everyone can just pile in and change the
source. Sure, you could modify your *own* copy to add features - but
that will just create lots of incompatible engines. Everyone will need
to work with the process, like Sun's JCP and all the other successful
open source projects out there.
I'm very concerned that a lot of CFers really don't understand how
open source projects work - I see the same thing around all the CF
frameworks with folks just assuming that their changes should be
incorporated (and getting upset when the project team refuse to
incorporate them) or going off and creating their own incompatible
version.
--
Sean A Corfield -- (904) 302-SEAN
An Architect's View -- http://corfield.org/
"If you're not annoying somebody, you're not really alive."
-- Margaret Atwood
Author: Tom Chiverton
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:55485#300944
> I think NA deserves a big warm hearted "thank you" from the whle CF
> community for taking this step.
Oh, I say 'thanks', but I don't believe, for instance, it's going to speed the
inclusion of Remoteing (OpenAMF) into the product.
--
Tom Chiverton
Helping to completely develop internet appliances
on: http://thefalken.livejournal.com
****************************************************
This email is sent for and on behalf of Halliwells LLP.
Halliwells LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales
under registered number OC307980 whose registered office address is at Halliwells
LLP, 3 Hardman Square, Spinningfields, Manchester, M3 3EB. A list of members is
available for inspection at the registered office. Any reference to a partner in
relation to Halliwells LLP means a member of Halliwells LLP. Regulated by The
Solicitors Regulation Authority.
CONFIDENTIALITY
This email is intended only for the use of the addressee named above and may be
confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the addressee you must not
read it and must not use any information contained in nor copy it nor inform any
person other than Halliwells LLP or the addressee of its existence or contents.
If you have received this email in error please delete it and notify Halliwells
LLP IT Department on 0870 365 2500.
For more information about Halliwells LLP visit
www.halliwells.com.
Author: Tanguy Rademakers
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:55485#300941
> It's "just another" CFML engine with not quite the same features as
> the 'offical' one.
> Being open source isn't much one way or the other, tbh.
Well, if people want to add features that are missing, now they can.
And it's more than "just another" CFML engine - it will be the only mature CFML
engine to be not only open source, but Free software.
I think NA deserves a big warm hearted "thank you" from the whle CF community for
taking this step.
Author: Tom Chiverton
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:55485#300929
> You can tie J2EE servers into Apache. In fact, the Smith Project has a
> simple step-by-step on how to do that with tomcat:
> http://smithproject.org/doc_preinstall.cfm
As does Railo (which comes with the Resin J2EE server by default).
>there's *NO QUESTION* that this
> announcement will help the CF Community grow.
It's "just another" CFML engine with not quite the same features as
the 'offical' one.
Being open source isn't much one way or the other, tbh.
Look at my posts earlier in the week about Railo - it's closed source but
they've ack'ed the problem and are going to fix it in the next release.
Why do I need their source ? I probably wouldn't understand it anyway :-)
--
Tom Chiverton
Helping to quickly optimize efficient environments
on: http://thefalken.livejournal.com
****************************************************
This email is sent for and on behalf of Halliwells LLP.
Halliwells LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales
under registered number OC307980 whose registered office address is at Halliwells
LLP, 3 Hardman Square, Spinningfields, Manchester, M3 3EB. A list of members is
available for inspection at the registered office. Any reference to a partner in
relation to Halliwells LLP means a member of Halliwells LLP. Regulated by The
Solicitors Regulation Authority.
CONFIDENTIALITY
This email is intended only for the use of the addressee named above and may be
confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the addressee you must not
read it and must not use any information contained in nor copy it nor inform any
person other than Halliwells LLP or the addressee of its existence or contents.
If you have received this email in error please delete it and notify Halliwells
LLP IT Department on 0870 365 2500.
For more information about Halliwells LLP visit
www.halliwells.com.
Author: Gerald Guido
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:55485#300918
>> Very easy. IIRC you can do it with a CFX tag.
Let me clarify: Very easy for pre v. 7
--
"I am always doing that which I can not do, in order that I may learn how to
do it."
- Pablo Picasso
Author: Gerald Guido
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:55485#300917
>> Is that even possible with CF? I mean yea you can encrypt your code,
but it's that fairly easily decrypted?
>>but it's that fairly easily decrypted?
Very easy. IIRC you can do it with a CFX tag.
>> Is that even possible with CF?
Yes.
As of v. 7 you could turn CFML into compiled Java bytecode. In theory you
could use a Java decompiler to turn the Java bytecode to java. But you would
need to know how CFML is rendered as Java.. And by the time you figured that
out you could have reverse engineered the app in question.... or have
written your own CFML engine.
----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----
Author: C. Hatton Humphrey
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:55485#300914
Distribution as I have had it explained to me means bundling BD with
some other product, be it physical or software.
Hatton
----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----
Author: Russ
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:55485#300913
I guess I was confused by the dual license approach they were talking about.
I guess you would only need the commercial license if you intent to
distribute your product and don't want to distribute the source? Is that
even possible with CF? I mean yea you can encrypt your code, but it's that
fairly easily decrypted?
Russ
----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----
Author: Tanguy Rademakers
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:55485#300911
>The one thing I think I'm reading is that it's still not for commercial use.
>If that's true, then it's really no better then the free bluedragon product
>that they're currently offer. They seemed to be open sourcing it just to
>get some free help with the development of the server.
Where did you read that? The way i read it, BD/J2EE will be released under the
GPL, minus some 3rd party libs they don't own the IP to. GPL apps may be used in
a "commercial" setting (i.e. you may use them on your client sites, or to run
your business site or office intranet - all examples that were verboten with the
old BD "free" license), what you can't do is bundle and distribute them into/with
any kind of proprietary or non-GPL product.
Author: Russ
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:55485#300907
CF itself runs on a J2EE server - JRUN and can be made to run on other J2EE
servers.
The one thing I think I'm reading is that it's still not for commercial use.
If that's true, then it's really no better then the free bluedragon product
that they're currently offer. They seemed to be open sourcing it just to
get some free help with the development of the server.
Russ
----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----
Author: Jordan Michaels
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:55485#300905
You can tie J2EE servers into Apache. In fact, the Smith Project has a
simple step-by-step on how to do that with tomcat:
http://smithproject.org/doc_preinstall.cfm
I'm anxious to see the details of the new license agreements, as that
will be the determining factor into how it's used by hosting companies
and their customers. Either way, there's *NO QUESTION* that this
announcement will help the CF Community grow.
Warm regards,
Jordan Michaels
Vivio Technologies
http://www.viviotech.net/
BlueDragon Alliance Member
jordan@viviotech.net
Gerald Guido wrote:
----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----
Author: Gerald Guido
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:55485#300904
I am pumped.
One thing I did notice was it was the J2EE version. Which, if I understand
correctly, is the version that is deployed on a Java App server like TomCat
or JBoss and not a "regular" web server like Apache or IIS. Which is all
fine with me in that is the direction I am heading anyways. But this is not
going to lend it self to opening the doors for traditional hosting
environments. Which is the the boost that CF really needs for popular
adoption/mindshare IMO. This release is more geared toward Enterprise
deployments.
J
----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----
Author: Sonny Savage
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:55485#300870
Dang it, you stole my comment!
On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 1:46 PM, Aar
----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----
Author: Aaron Rouse
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:55485#300866
Whats even more interesting is that announcement is from the future ;)
----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----
Author: Tanguy Rademakers
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:55485#300867
More info here:
http://blog.newatlanta.com/index.cfm?mode=entry&entry=EABF951D-453A-486E-9647E2825D1E6F39
(watch the wrap)
>http://www.newatlanta.com/corporate/news/bluedragon_opensource_announce.
>jsp
Author: Brad Wood
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:55485#300863
Interesting:
http://www.newatlanta.com/corporate/news/bluedragon_opensource_announce.
jsp
~Brad
|
May 24, 2012
|
Latest Fusion Authority Articles
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
