Why would I choose a CF Framework over a CF CMS system? I have no real=0A=
experience with either, other than installing both and playing around.=0A=
If a CF CMS system such as Mura speck already include a framework such=0A=
as Coldbox, Model-glue FW/1. why not just go for a Mura type system? I
Framework over a CF CMS system? I have no real=0A=
experience with either, other than installing both and playing around.=0A=
If a CF CMS system such as Mura speck already include a framework
such=0A=
as Coldbox, Model-glue FW/1. why not just go for a Mura type system? I=0A=
understand there's
Why would I choose a CF Framework over a CF CMS system?
I'm affraid you are comparing apples and oranges.
You would use a CF framework to develop a CMS system but you wouldn't have to
develop anything if you use a CMS system
Right! That's my question, since a CMS system already has a form of framework
built inside, there's no need for a Framework. Why not just always use a CMS
and custimze to your heart's content?
Why would I choose a CF Framework over a CF CMS system?
I'm affraid you are comparing apples
Right! That's my question, since a CMS system already has a form of
framework built inside, there's no need for a Framework. Why not just
always use a CMS and custimze to your heart's content?
There isn't always a framework built into it (or if there is one, it's been
set up specifically
Right! That's my question, since a CMS system already has a form of
framework built inside, there's no
need for a Framework. Why not just always use a CMS and custimze to your
heart's content?
The C in CMS stands for Content. If you're building a site that's
all (or perhaps mostly
To answer your question, the major difference between customizing a CMS versus
incorporating your content management within a framework, IMHO, comes *after*
the site is built. That said, I think its often far easier to do the former
than the latter, as most CMS systems arent documented
management within a framework, IMHO, comes
*after* the site is built. That said, I think its often far easier to do the
former than the latter, as most CMS systems arent documented to be fully
customized but, instead are documented to develop against their own, limited,
plugin architecture
to. There's Slatwall on the CFML
side. Aside from that, you really should try to use one of the SaaS
platforms if at all possible - Shopify, etc. And I say this as someone
who's written several ecommerce engines.
On 12/5/13 3:41 PM, Nils wrote:
Why would I choose a CF Framework over a CF CMS system? I
Philip ContentBox is not using ColdBox as you describe, let me be very
clear here. A framework helps you achieve common application problems, for
example ColdBox provides the ability to provide AOP and ContentBox uses
this feature of the framework heavily. But the framework was not as you put
I stand corrected. I didn't mean to make that statement. The overall point
though was covered by Dave.
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 6:01 PM, Andrew Scott andr...@andyscott.id.auwrote:
Philip ContentBox is not using ColdBox as you describe, let me be very
clear here. A framework helps you achieve
Nils as others have pointed out.
A framework is something that helps you achieve something, like a
screwdriver it is a tool that helps you remove and insert screws into small
holes to do its job. Think if a framework like a tool belt of tools that
help you create and application, but it means
So I'm on a new contract and part of the contract requirements is converting
an old fusebox (procedural) app to a newer framework. I've mostly been
doing Model-Glue in past few years, but because of the XML setup, it doesn't
seem to be an option here.
Two of the applications (which are newer
at 12:53 PM, Sandra Clark sclarkli...@gmail.comwrote:
So I'm on a new contract and part of the contract requirements is
converting
an old fusebox (procedural) app to a newer framework. I've mostly been
doing Model-Glue in past few years, but because of the XML setup, it
doesn't
seem
though, but not sure if that would make much difference.
Will
On 24 July 2012 12:53, Sandra Clark sclarkli...@gmail.com wrote:
So I'm on a new contract and part of the contract requirements is
converting
an old fusebox (procedural) app to a newer framework. I've mostly been
doing Model-Glue
+1 for FW/1
That is all I am using these days, and I am moving all my sites to it.
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 5:12 AM, Will Swain w...@hothorse.com wrote:
We used FW/1, Coldspring and Taffy to handle this,
~|
Order the Adobe
I think FW/1 is great for a barebones framework where you don't want it
getting in your way. I think the documentation and examples are excellent.
As I understand it, the next version will be packaged with DI/1 (
dependency
Injection) and with routing you can sort of do ReST stuff (though I
fusebox (procedural) app to a newer framework. I've mostly been
doing Model-Glue in past few years, but because of the XML setup, it doesn't
seem to be an option here.
~|
Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now!
http
I guess the fw/1 docs must have improved since i last looked at it then,
good to hear.
Regards
Russ Michaels
On Jul 24, 2012 1:24 PM, AJ Mercer ajmer...@gmail.com wrote:
I think FW/1 is great for a barebones framework where you don't want it
getting in your way. I think the documentation
: The age old Question. Which framework
I'll ditto the FW/1 recommendation, but I'm curious about why XML makes
Model-Glue not an option? The powers that be don't like XML?
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 6:53 AM, Sandra Clark sclarkli...@gmail.com wrote:
So I'm on a new contract and part of the contract
-Original Message-
From: Raymond Camden [mailto:raymondcam...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2012 9:13 AM
To: cf-talk
Subject: Re: The age old Question. Which framework
I'll ditto the FW/1 recommendation, but I'm curious about why XML makes
Model-Glue not an option? The powers that be don't
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 9:26 AM, Sandra Clark sclarkli...@gmail.com wrote:
Pretty much. To them, XML equals a fusebox like approach and they want to
get away from FB. Which is a shame, cause I'm very comfortable with MG
If I were to read between the lines here I'd say this usually
I am kinda of curious to see what frameworks are being promoted these days?
Is it Fusebox? Or Mode-Glue? I also am hearing a lot about CF-Wheels, so just
wanna hear anybody's thoughts that may want to have an actual discussion about
development.
By the way, I am just returning to CF
Adrian,
Thanks for the heads up! Already on the move with jQuery. Sounds like Mach II
kicking butt versus the others. I may be mistaken but from what i am seeing
Fusebox seems to have lost a lot of steam.
Mike
On Jan 25, 2011, at 5:56 PM, Adrian J. Moreno wrote:
ColdBox or Mach-II.
Grant [mailto:mgr...@modus.bz]
Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2011 5:24 PM
To: cf-talk
Subject: Re: Beta Tester Wanted for new CF (MVC) Framework
Know it to be true? Nobody knows it except the people at Google. Why risk
someone's hunch that's it isn't true? At best what do you gain if you're
And when it comes to SEO mojo why risk it?
That's a non-argument that I hear from so-called SEO experts all the time
with little or no data to back it up. It's a fear-based approach that
really has no validity in and of itself. Show me a controlled experiment.
Show me a definitive statement
I'm not trying to rob you Bilbo... I'm trying to help you.
-mk
-Original Message-
From: Michael Grant [mailto:mgr...@modus.bz]
Sent: Friday, January 07, 2011 5:25 AM
To: cf-talk
Subject: Re: Beta Tester Wanted for new CF (MVC) Framework
I'm not going head to head with anyone. I just
So you're reacting to the word mojo?
Yeah, I am. Because, in every other area of computing, when you do
something you can measure and verify the effects. Once you lose that
ability to measure, you don't have anything worth buying.
You seem to have a personal axe to grind here. Did you get
I'm not going head to head with anyone. I just know I've come to my
conclusions about SEO based on personal experience and the opinions of
others in this community who I respect. The owner of this list being one of
them. I don't really care to argue about. If DW thinks I'm wrong that's the
Plus I think he's an Old Milwaukee guy (chi tea? Ouch!)
Fortunately, at this stage of my life I can do a bit better than Old
Milwaukee! I just went to Belgium recently - now that's some good
beer.
Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
http://www.figleaf.com/
http://training.figleaf.com/
Fig Leaf
Well Dave, I would say in that instance, their Mojo would just be considered
their tried and true techniques to get results. Just as all of us
developers use tried and true functions, frameworks, etc... which give us
advantages, or Mojo, over other development companies. I do agree that it
is
Just as a point of note. I'm not an SEO expert. I don't call myself an SEO
expert. I don't even offer SEO services other than the routine methodology I
employ when building a site.
These aren't the droids you're looking for.
On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 9:51 AM, Justin Scott
On behalf of my friends in Wisconsin... what's wrong with Old Milwaukee?
-Original Message-
From: Dave Watts [mailto:dwa...@figleaf.com]
Sent: Friday, January 07, 2011 10:16 AM
To: cf-talk
Subject: Re: Beta Tester Wanted for new CF (MVC) Framework
Plus I think he's an Old
It's like making love in a canoe.
On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 9:42 AM, Mark A. Kruger mkru...@cfwebtools.com wrote:
On behalf of my friends in Wisconsin... what's wrong with Old Milwaukee?
~|
Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology
On behalf of my friends in Wisconsin... what's wrong with Old Milwaukee?
If you get full before you get drunk, something's not right.
Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
http://www.figleaf.com/
http://training.figleaf.com/
Fig Leaf Software is a Veteran-Owned Small Business (VOSB) on
GSA
You mean not so fun when you do it but a great story to tell later??
-Original Message-
From: Judah McAuley [mailto:ju...@wiredotter.com]
Sent: Friday, January 07, 2011 11:48 AM
To: cf-talk
Subject: Re: Beta Tester Wanted for new CF (MVC) Framework
It's like making love in a canoe
To: cf-talk
Subject: Re: Beta Tester Wanted for new CF (MVC) Framework
It's like making love in a canoe.
On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 9:42 AM, Mark A. Kruger mkru...@cfwebtools.com
wrote:
On behalf of my friends in Wisconsin... what's wrong with Old Milwaukee
It's like making love in a canoe.
+1
That's not a beer. THIS is a beer: tp://
stickandballguy.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/baltika9.jpg
You mean not so fun when you do it but a great story to tell later??
It is F-ing close to water.
G!
On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 12:48 PM, Judah McAuley
[mailto:ju...@wiredotter.com]
Sent: Friday, January 07, 2011 11:48 AM
To: cf-talk
Subject: Re: Beta Tester Wanted for new CF (MVC) Framework
It's like making love in a canoe.
On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 9:42 AM, Mark A. Kruger mkru...@cfwebtools.com
wrote:
On behalf of my friends in Wisconsin
Well I know I asked for it... but I'm offended all the same (ha).
-Original Message-
From: Judah McAuley [mailto:ju...@wiredotter.com]
Sent: Friday, January 07, 2011 12:12 PM
To: cf-talk
Subject: Re: Beta Tester Wanted for new CF (MVC) Framework
No, it's fucking close to water
Just as a point of note. I'm not an SEO expert.
Nor am I, and I didn't say that you were, just pointing out that your
argument is one that I hear people who claim to be.
-Justin
~|
Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now!
I disagree
Russ
-Original Message-
From: Dave Watts [mailto:dwa...@figleaf.com]
Sent: 07 January 2011 16:14
To: cf-talk
Subject: Re: Beta Tester Wanted for new CF (MVC) Framework
I'm not going head to head with anyone. I just know I've come to my
conclusions about SEO based
I don't think the SEO-unfriendliness of running everything through
index.cfm has been an issue for a very long time. They used to have an
issue with indexing query strings / dynamic URLs, but not any more. Maybe
some of the smaller ones still do, but the major ones definitely do not.
Really, if
It's not an issue in that Google can't crawl you. It's an issue in that
Google will rank this:
mysite.com/Cars/BMW/X3
Higher than this:
mysite.com?cat=carsmaker=bmwstyle=x3
On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 6:39 AM, Scott Brady dsbr...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't think the SEO-unfriendliness of
It's not an issue in that Google can't crawl you. It's
an issue in that Google will rank this:
mysite.com/Cars/BMW/X3
Higher than this:
mysite.com?cat=carsmaker=bmwstyle=x3
I realize that is a common belief, but I have never seen any compelling
evidence to back up the claim. If there's a
, January 06, 2011 8:24 AM
To: cf-talk
Subject: RE: Beta Tester Wanted for new CF (MVC) Framework
It's not an issue in that Google can't crawl you. It's
an issue in that Google will rank this:
mysite.com/Cars/BMW/X3
Higher than this:
mysite.com?cat=carsmaker=bmwstyle=x3
I realize
...@cfwebtools.com]
Sent: 06 January 2011 14:51
To: cf-talk
Subject: RE: Beta Tester Wanted for new CF (MVC) Framework
Justin,
I used to be in your camp but I've reversed course. I now believe that
having a semantic url actually does matter - as opposed to simply url
params. I'm basing this on working
I don't think the SEO-unfriendliness of running everything through
index.cfm has been an issue for a very long time. They used to have an
issue with indexing query strings / dynamic URLs, but not any more. Maybe
some of the smaller ones still do, but the major ones definitely do not.
It's not an issue in that Google can't crawl you. It's an issue in that
Google will rank this:
mysite.com/Cars/BMW/X3
Higher than this:
mysite.com?cat=carsmaker=bmwstyle=x3
I would be a bit surprised if that's true. Both URLs contain obvious,
easily-read data. Google is full of smart
Well it was an example case. Most url vars aren't as easy to read as my fake
example. It would probably be more like mysite.com?id=1345238
On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 12:09 PM, Dave Watts dwa...@figleaf.com wrote:
It's not an issue in that Google can't crawl you. It's an issue in that
Google
It's not an issue in that Google can't crawl you. It's an issue in that
Google will rank this:
mysite.com/Cars/BMW/X3
Higher than this:
mysite.com?cat=carsmaker=bmwstyle=x3
I would be a bit surprised if that's true. Both URLs contain obvious,
easily-read data. Google
On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 4:58 AM, Michael Grant mgr...@modus.bz wrote:
It's not an issue in that Google can't crawl you. It's an issue in that
Google will rank this:
mysite.com/Cars/BMW/X3
Higher than this:
mysite.com?cat=carsmaker=bmwstyle=x3
Very likely but most frameworks support basic
Yes they are. However I believe my original point (minus my supporting
argument) is still valid. Well structured urls are better than url vars. Or
at least that's what I've always known to be true. And when it comes to SEO
mojo why risk it?
On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 5:03 PM, Dave Watts
Yes they are. However I believe my original point (minus my supporting
argument) is still valid. Well structured urls are better than url vars. Or
at least that's what I've always known to be true. And when it comes to SEO
mojo why risk it?
URL parameters, by themselves, don't prevent a URL
Know it to be true? Nobody knows it except the people at Google. Why risk
someone's hunch that's it isn't true? At best what do you gain if you're
right? Save a few hours dev time? And at worst? You lose search engine rank
which can have disastrous effects on a company. To me it's not worth the
Know it to be true? Nobody knows it except the people at Google. Why risk
someone's hunch that's it isn't true? At best what do you gain if you're
right? Save a few hours dev time? And at worst? You lose search engine rank
which can have disastrous effects on a company. To me it's not worth
So you're reacting to the word mojo?
You seem to have a personal axe to grind here. Did you get taken by an SEO
guy selling snake oil?
On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 7:22 PM, Dave Watts dwa...@figleaf.com wrote:
Know it to be true? Nobody knows it except the people at Google. Why
risk
someone's
I really don't think Dave has any Axe to grind, they are after all just true
facts he has stated,perhaps he may have gone a bit OTT in calling SEO
experts snake oil salesmen though. Every field has its experts, so an SEO
expert is really no different than a CSS expert or a user interface expert,
(MVC) Framework
Know it to be true? Nobody knows it except the people at Google. Why risk
someone's hunch that's it isn't true? At best what do you gain if you're
right? Save a few hours dev time? And at worst? You lose search engine rank
which can have disastrous effects on a company. To me it's
Steve,
I'm personally not sure if yet another framework is needed, we have quite a
few now from simple (cfwheels or FW/1) for all singing all dancing OOP
behemoths (ColdBox) but kudos for trying and I hope it works out for you.
While I think all these security concerns are valid, and it would
Russ,
Thanks for your comment and encouragement.
The scrutiny is certainly valid. I don't think the problem is as serious as it
first appeared, but it is with regard to all uploaded files handled by the
framework so it is a pretty significant area of concern and definitely
something I am
-Original Message-
From: Steve Bryant [mailto:st...@bryantwebconsulting.com]
Sent: 05 January 2011 17:39
To: cf-talk
Subject: Re: Beta Tester Wanted for new CF (MVC) Framework
Russ,
Thanks for your comment and encouragement.
The scrutiny is certainly valid. I don't think the problem
in the framework will
get in your way.
Oh yeah, no need to modify your traffic reporting software.
It was tempting to follow those CF naming conventions, but I managed to resist.
:-)
Steve
I can certainly see the advantage in NOT routing everything through
index.cfm, it is more SEO friendly without having
Hello fellow CFers,
I just released a beta of a new ColdFusion framework called Neptune and I would
love to get some beta testers to help me find bugs or make suggestions on how
it could be improved. We have been using it internally for a few years on
several projects, so I am curious to see
:28 AM
To: cf-talk
Subject: Beta Tester Wanted for new CF (MVC) Framework
Hello fellow CFers,
I just released a beta of a new ColdFusion framework called Neptune and I
would love to get some beta testers to help me find bugs or make suggestions
on how it could be improved. We have been using
:28 AM
To: cf-talk
Subject: Beta Tester Wanted for new CF (MVC) Framework
Hello fellow CFers,
I just released a beta of a new ColdFusion framework called Neptune and I
would love to get some beta testers to help me find bugs or make
suggestions on how it could be improved. We have been
this is configurable.
Regards,
Andrew Scott
http://www.andyscott.id.au/
-Original Message-
From: Steve Bryant [mailto:st...@bryantwebconsulting.com]
Sent: Wednesday, 5 January 2011 3:28 AM
To: cf-talk
Subject: Beta Tester Wanted for new CF (MVC) Framework
Hello fellow CFers,
I just released
Andrew,
The default folder for uploading files has a Application.cfm that just contains
cfabort to help mitigate that risk. Assuming the uploads themselves limit
file types allowed, how serious a risk do you think that is?
Also, yes, easy to configure. Just change the UploadPath setting in
://www.andyscott.id.au/
-Original Message-
From: Steve Bryant [mailto:st...@bryantwebconsulting.com]
Sent: Wednesday, 5 January 2011 7:01 AM
To: cf-talk
Subject: Re: Beta Tester Wanted for new CF (MVC) Framework
Andrew,
The default folder for uploading files has
it really easy to limit file types.
I could probably change the framework a bit so that it also has a built-in set
of mime-types and file extensions to refuse unless they are explicitly allowed
in those attributes.
Do you think that would be enough to leave off the warning or at least make it
a bit
) Framework
Andrew,
I'll have to ponder that.
Right now the following XML would create a table with two file fields, one of
which would accept only images and the other would accept only vcard files.
table entity=Contact
field name=ContactImage Label=Image type=image folder=images
Duane,
Good question. I would think so, but I am not expert enough on the topic to be
confident of that.
I believe I have that set already in the folder in the zip as well as in the
download created from the generator. If not, I will correct.
Anyone know a reason why that would not be
/
-Original Message-
From: Steve Bryant [mailto:st...@bryantwebconsulting.com]
Sent: Wednesday, 5 January 2011 7:38 AM
To: cf-talk
Subject: Re: Beta Tester Wanted for new CF (MVC) Framework
Andrew,
I'll have to ponder that.
Right now the following XML would create a table with two file
To further Andrews Point,
We typically create a script to deliver the requested file so we can run a
bit of CF to properly name the file and ensure the user has a valid
permission to even request it. So with our basic framework we usually have
a download.cfm script which will serve it up if all
Andrew,
Correct me if I am mistaken, but I thought that was if the system was checking
*only* mime-type. The framework checks both mime-type AND file extension. I did
check on that at the time of that exploit and ensured that our framework was
protected from that exploit. If I have missed
David,
That is certainly another point altogether. As I said, the framework does allow
you to configure location and URL path for uploaded files which *should* allow
a URL path like /file.cfm?file=.
I have added testing that as a relatively high-priority task for my next round
of work
Yeah, I wasn't knocking it...
On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 5:15 PM, Steve Bryant
st...@bryantwebconsulting.comwrote:
David,
That is certainly another point altogether. As I said, the framework does
allow you to configure location and URL path for uploaded files which
*should* allow a URL path
...@bryantwebconsulting.com]
Sent: Wednesday, 5 January 2011 9:12 AM
To: cf-talk
Subject: Re: Beta Tester Wanted for new CF (MVC) Framework
Andrew,
Correct me if I am mistaken, but I thought that was if the system was
checking *only* mime-type. The framework checks both mime-type
the framework to save
and load files in anything location you would like. I don't think anyone is
NOT agreeing with you about the security.
On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 5:25 PM, Andrew Scott andr...@andyscott.id.auwrote:
Checking the mime-type and the extension is not secure.
I can write a CFML name
Yeah I think I got myself confused there, have a blinding headache and
wasn't thinking on that one.
The point Steve needs to understand is that this is changeable, and that
means that someone can easily come along and change the framework. That
means there should be a warning of some degree
his code before your validation has a
chance to reject the file.
And ALL of this is based on what the hackers are doing today with
today's vulnerabilities. Why leave your framework in a position where
it would be at risk if hackers figure out tomorrow some other way to
hide code in innocent
as part of the URL path for uploaded files.
Thanks,
Steve
Yeah I think I got myself confused there, have a blinding headache and
wasn't thinking on that one.
The point Steve needs to understand is that this is changeable, and that
means that someone can easily come along and change the framework
file as .png. At which point you can
upload as an image in my framework. When it is requested in the URL, however,
it is just an invalid image. CFAS will never process it because .png isn't on
the list of file types for it to process. Even if it was, Application.cfm would
run first and abort
9:45 AM
To: cf-talk
Subject: Re: Beta Tester Wanted for new CF (MVC) Framework
Andrew,
You just hit me with a You should know that and a Steve needs to
understand I get that you have a headache, but I am not trying to
fight
you on this. I am really just trying to get a feel
there. A file extension can be *changed*, but (unless I
understand incorrectly), the server is going to decide how to handle a file
based on the extension.
So, for example, you may save a ColdFusion file as .png. At which point you
can upload as an image in my framework. When it is requested
) Framework
Ian,
Even if it was, Application.cfm
would run first and abort the process.
~|
Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now!
http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion
with a
.cfm extension.
So, with all these back and forth, just re-factor your framework to, By
Default, be configured to upload to a non web root folder.
On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 6:01 PM, Andrew Scott andr...@andyscott.id.auwrote:
What about *.jsp files, or even aspx or asp files?
Regards
Andrew,
Definitely a good point which is why I mentioned modifying the framework to
have black-listed file extensions that would have to be explicitly allowed for
a field.
I do think, however, that I should have a note on the section about uploading
files that a list of allowed extensions
To: cf-talk
Subject: Re: Beta Tester Wanted for new CF (MVC) Framework
Andrew,
Definitely a good point which is why I mentioned modifying the framework
to have black-listed file extensions that would have to be explicitly
allowed
for a field.
I do think, however, that I should have
(MVC) Framework
David,
That is certainly another point altogether. As I said, the framework does
allow you to configure location and URL path for uploaded files which
*should* allow a URL path like /file.cfm?file=.
I have added testing that as a relatively high-priority task for my next
round
Steve,
In spite of the small hornet's nest you stepped in let me congradulate you
on your framework and thank you for putting yourself out there. As a blogger
who has to accept every criticism with a smile (or perhaps I should say
chooses to accept)... and a sense of humor, I appreciate what
in let me congradulate you
on your framework and thank you for putting yourself out there. As a
blogger
who has to accept every criticism with a smile (or perhaps I should say
chooses to accept)... and a sense of humor, I appreciate what it takes to
let the community - even a nice one like CF
On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 8:27 AM, Steve Bryant
st...@bryantwebconsulting.com wrote:
I think it is quite a bit unlike any other ColdFusion framework out there. It
isn't hub-and-spoke (where all requests are routed through index.cfm, for
example). It doesn't require OO. It does, however, provide
Mark,
I actually remember reading that blog post when it came out (I always love your
blog, by the way). To be honest, I don't remember if I am doing that validation
in place or not. Certainly this does demonstrate that it shouldn't be done in
place - and I will address that if it is.
I am
Subject: Re: Beta Tester Wanted for new CF (MVC) Framework
Mark,
I actually remember reading that blog post when it came out (I always love
your blog, by the way). To be honest, I don't remember if I am doing that
validation in place or not. Certainly this does demonstrate that it
shouldn't
Subject: Re: Beta Tester Wanted for new CF (MVC) Framework
Mark,
I actually remember reading that blog post when it came out (I always love
your blog, by the way). To be honest, I don't remember if I am doing that
validation in place or not. Certainly this does demonstrate that it
shouldn't be done
where it
can be done, it is an extra step (if only a small one).
Everything about the framework is supposed to be brain-dead easy to use. Any
place where I move away from obvious and blindingly easy to use I want to
have a really compelling reason to do so. Even a small step away from this goal
of everything
eh :)
-mark
-Original Message-
From: Steve Bryant [mailto:st...@bryantwebconsulting.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2011 9:43 PM
To: cf-talk
Subject: Re: Beta Tester Wanted for new CF (MVC) Framework
Mark,
Good to know. I certainly understand about future threats, but I think
from the URL.
Regards,
Andrew Scott
http://www.andyscott.id.au/
-Original Message-
From: Mark A. Kruger [mailto:mkru...@cfwebtools.com]
Sent: Wednesday, 5 January 2011 3:04 PM
To: cf-talk
Subject: RE: Beta Tester Wanted for new CF (MVC) Framework
Steve,
Ok... given your
think the temporary directory for processing file uploads
during validation should be outside the web root. I am confident I can
accomplish that without impact to the user of the framework.
Thanks,
Steve
~|
Order the Adobe
1 - 100 of 669 matches
Mail list logo
