Naah, then you'd get people using the Developer version to host Internal Intranet Apps.
At 10:53 AM 10/18/2002 -0700, you wrote: >Perhaps the IP's could be limited to sanctioned non-external IP's? >192.168.x.x - etc > - >-----Original Message----- >From: Dick Applebaum [mailto:dicklacara@;mac.com] >Sent: Friday, October 18, 2002 9:22 AM >To: CF-Talk >Subject: RE: CFMX Developer Edition wish was Re: Pro v Enterprise? > > >Oops, I posted this to the wrong thread. > >I started this thread, and maybe I should end it. > >I posted it here, because I thought it applied to individual CF >developers -- whether part of a large organizations or one-person shops. > >I also thought , that because of the members of the CF-Talk list, it >would get better/faster response than the other HOF CF lists -- >everyone is on this list, many are not on CF Community, CF-Linux, etc, >My apologies to everyone, especially Michael, if this was a disservice. > >The original, request was to expand, slightly, the number of external >IPs supported by the CFMX Trial (Enterprise) system after it reverted >to the Developer system. > >The number of external IPs I had in mind, was 2-4, so that with >localhost, the Developer version would have a total of 1-5 addresses. > >The propose was to allow a single developer, with a single Developer >system to do: > > Multi-user Demonstrations/Presentations > > Multi-user interaction testing, debugging > > Limited Stress testing > > Use of Advanced CFMX features - Consuming/publishing > web services, Flash Remoting, etc. > > Someone added multi-user walkthrough of an application > to geographically distributed members of a team > >The intent was to help the individual developer to do his job, better, > >The intent was not to use this expanded capability to allow multiple >developers >to share a single system for development. > >Unfortunately, as the thread progressed, it morphed into a multi-user >Developer system -- this would mean lost revenue to Macromedia, as it >would displace sales of CFMX (pro or Enterprise) to Development shops, >who stage their development on such in-house systems, before deploying >on a production system (in-house or out-house). > >Again, that was not the intent. And, if you think about the way the >additional IPs would likely be handled in the expanded system, it >really wouldn't work well as multiuser developer system. > >Consider this, assuming 4 external IPs were allowed: > >-- The number of external IPs is *NOT* any 4 concurrent external >users.. -- Rather, it is the first 4 external users who access the >system. -- Once 4 users have accessed the system, all others are >locked out. > >-- If any or all of the first 4, turn their machines off or go home, it >doesn't change > anything -- all other users are locked out > >-- the only way to remove the lock is to recycle the system > >C'Mon, how practical would it to be on a team of 5 users, sharing such >a system for development. > >-- The person who is localhost is the only one who can do CFMX admin >things -- Whenever another IP (after the first 4) wanted to access the >system, it would need to be recycled > (and coordinated with all the others sharing the system) > >-- the localhost person would get stuck with all the SA duties, and not >be able to control his > development activities. > >-- the localhost person could do lots of things (burn a DVD) and bring >the others efforts to a halt > >-- Other than localhost users would be at the mercy (whim) of local >host. > >-- noone could get anything done without localhost being there > >-- noone, including localhost could take their work with them (home, >client, off site presentation). > >If I had deadlines/commitments to meet, I wouldn't go within miles of >a "Developer" system, like that. Rather, I would put CFMX Developer on >my laptop or desktop, along with whatever DB, files, etc. -- and, aND, >AND --- > >Be in complete control of my own development environment (maybe IDE >really means Individual Developer Environment). > >Could a shop of three users avoid buying a CFMX license, by sharing a >"Developer" version? > >Sure they could, but if you want to beat the system there are much >better ways . > >I maintain, these three would be much better off, if each had his own >copy of CFMX developer installed on his own computer -- why share that? > You lose all the advantage (independence) of the CFMX Developer system. > >When you need to collaborate, you plug into a "real" staged development >system -- not some emasculated system that gets recycled all the time. > >Well, I guess I have beaten this to death, but I would like to try and >make one final poignant. > >A single-Developer system that supports a limited number of external >IPs will allow that developer to be more efficient -- which should >result in more, and more-rapid deployment of production CFMX systems. >This equates to revenue for Macromedia, and a improved relationship >with the developer community. For the reasons discussed above, I don't >believe that expanding the single-Developer system will have any impact >on the purchase of CFMX for multi-user development purposes. > >I hope that Macromedia will consider this as a serious request, with >potential benefits to Macromedia, CFMX developers and our clients. > >Dick > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists&body=lists/cf_talk FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm
