On Wednesday 14 September 2005 17:50, Matthew Blatchley wrote:
Very cool..
I've taken another look.
It is, indeed, very very cool.
(Briefly, seemless data binding of javascript to remote (java|.net) classes
with Ajax). And it's free (apperently) for commercial use.
:forwards widely.
--
Tom
The page I posted seems to have disappeared
this one works OK:
http://www.themidnightcoders.com/examples/phonebook.htm
Very impressive demo, I found it here:
http://blog.newatlanta.
com /weborb/examples/richclientprimer/javascript-ajax/phonebook-bluedragon.
cfm
curious as to why
On Wednesday 14 September 2005 16:29, Andrew Grosset wrote:
http://www.themidnightcoders.com/examples/phonebook.htm
Doesn't work (Konqueror).
--
Tom Chiverton
Advanced ColdFusion Programmer
~|
Logware (www.logware.us): a
What is the WebORB server? Is this example using CFC's or is the data
lookups done from the WebOrb Server?
- Original Message -
From: Thomas Chiverton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: CF-Talk cf-talk@houseoffusion.com
Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2005 11:19 AM
Subject: Re: Ajax and CFCs
Services, EJBs
and ColdFusion Components
Very cool..
- Original Message -
From: Matthew Blatchley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: CF-Talk cf-talk@houseoffusion.com
Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2005 11:36 AM
Subject: Re: Ajax and CFCs
What is the WebORB server? Is this example using CFC's
-Original Message-
From: Roger B. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2005 12:56 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: WDDX Replacement Attempt (was RE: Ajax and CFCs)
If you have some time I'd much appreciate you going over my XMLRPC
implementation to see if it measures up
I'm making the assumption (probably a good one) that the problem
is on my end...
Jim: It's not a problem... just confusion brought on by a lack of
explanation. That outer array is the array of params... you can
safely ignore it.
To make things clearer, I added a second CFDUMP that displays
-Original Message-
From: Roger B. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2005 10:50 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: WDDX Replacement Attempt (was RE: Ajax and CFCs)
I'm making the assumption (probably a good one) that the problem
is on my end...
Jim: It's
Mostly because I'd never heard of it until you mentioned it. Where have you
been for the past two weeks while I've been ranting about not having
something like this. ;^)
Jim: I only skim the list, in general. I'm surprised I didn't notice
the conversation, though... I have watchlists set up
But
although the system does seem to be well supported it also seems to be
poorly documented. ;^)
Jim: That's a matter of perspective. Some people love Dave Winer's
approach to spec-writing, and some people absolutely *loathe* it. I'm
gonna guess you're in the latter group. :D
-
-Original Message-
From: Roger B. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2005 12:56 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: WDDX Replacement Attempt (was RE: Ajax and CFCs)
But
although the system does seem to be well supported it also seems to be
poorly documented
Jim: Any reason not to go with the prior art and just use (or extend,
if necessary) XML-RPC?
XML-RPC parsers are everywhere, so it's pretty much the no-brainer
default option for passing around programmatic data. In fact, that was
one of the big points made when Jeremy Allaire and I were
-Original Message-
From: Roger B. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, August 19, 2005 10:04 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: WDDX Replacement Attempt (was RE: Ajax and CFCs)
Jim: Any reason not to go with the prior art and just use (or extend,
if necessary) XML-RPC?
Mostly because
-Original Message-
From: Roger B. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, August 19, 2005 10:04 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: WDDX Replacement Attempt (was RE: Ajax and CFCs)
Jim: Any reason not to go with the prior art and just use (or extend,
if necessary) XML-RPC?
XML-RPC
[Sorry - I posted this in CFCommunity already but all the action seems to be
over here...]
I've worked on it some more and have something that, on paper, seems good to
me. I've built a JavaScript Serializer (but haven't yet begun to tackle the
deserializer). I've created and validated the XSD
-Original Message-
From: Terry Nisenbaum [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2005 11:31 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Ajax and CFCs
implementation regardless whether it is written in ColdFusion of C#. In
fact, one should be able to swap the underlying
Well - it looks like dataML is already taken for something else anyway...
anybody got a good idea for a new name?
I'm thinking either simple as in dpml (Depressed Press Markup Language)
which says absolutely NOTHING about what it does or esoteric like Rosetta.
Whatcha think?
I know this is
at this point...
- Calvin
-Original Message-
From: Jim Davis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2005 2:09 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: WDDX Replacement Attempt (was RE: Ajax and CFCs)
[Sorry - I posted this in CFCommunity already but all the action seems to be
over here...]
I've
-
From: Terry Nisenbaum [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: donderdag 18 augustus 2005 5:09
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Ajax and CFCs
You mean like web services or WDDX?
mike chambers
Yes, I mean something like SOAP. SOAP would be a good candidate to
implement in JavaScript (Flash already has
to the BD product, so I'm not entirely sure that ColdFusion
components is accurate in the context below.
-Original Message-
From: Terry Nisenbaum [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2005 11:31 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Ajax and CFCs
As various AJAX implementations popup
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Why not dpxl, seeing as it's not a markup language so much as a data
transfer language that happens to an XML application?
Jim Davis wrote:
+) Something that's easy to parse for JavaScript. SOAP is NOT easy to
parse (which is, I think, why there's
At 02:33 AM 8/18/2005, you wrote:
Well - it looks like dataML is already taken for something else anyway...
anybody got a good idea for a new name?
I'm thinking either simple as in dpml (Depressed Press Markup Language)
which says absolutely NOTHING about what it does or esoteric like Rosetta.
On Thursday 18 August 2005 10:04, Micha Schopman wrote:
Microsoft provides a free webservice.htc to accommodate SOAP operations
with Javascript.
..htc aren't real web pages.
--
Tom Chiverton
Advanced ColdFusion Programmer
Well - it looks like dataML is already taken for
something else anyway...
anybody got a good idea for a new name?
I'm thinking either simple as in dpml (Depressed Press
Markup Language)
which says absolutely NOTHING about what it does or
esoteric like Rosetta.
Whatcha think?
I know
-Original Message-
From: Micha Schopman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2005 5:04 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Ajax and CFCs
Microsoft provides a free webservice.htc to accommodate SOAP operations
with Javascript.
This component doesn't actually work with CF
XIEF (XML Information Exchange Format)
-Original Message-
From: S. Isaac Dealey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2005 10:33 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: WDDX Replacement Attempt (was RE: Ajax and CFCs)
Well - it looks like dataML is already taken for something else
-Original Message-
From: Thomas Chiverton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2005 10:08 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Ajax and CFCs
On Thursday 18 August 2005 10:04, Micha Schopman wrote:
Microsoft provides a free webservice.htc to accommodate SOAP operations
Jim, we plan to publish a schema for the protocol. It hasn't been done yet
since the product is in Beta and want to make sure everything is done right and
works as intended. When the schema is published it will be contributed to the
public domain, so other can contribute and use it in their own
Jim,
Contact me off list about WDDX.
Rey...
Jim Davis wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Thomas Chiverton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2005 10:08 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Ajax and CFCs
On Thursday 18 August 2005 10:04, Micha Schopman wrote:
Microsoft provides
-Original Message-
From: Keith Gaughan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2005 7:57 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: WDDX Replacement Attempt (was RE: Ajax and CFCs)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Why not dpxl, seeing as it's not a markup language so
-Original Message-
From: Calvin Ward [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2005 7:32 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: WDDX Replacement Attempt (was RE: Ajax and CFCs)
Interesting ideas and it seems like a good direction.
The use of the word object seems to trip me up
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jim Davis wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Keith Gaughan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Not quite true. The data typing in JSON is implicit. Of the types listed
below it can unambiguously represent object, array, null, string,
string, boolean, and
-Original Message-
From: Keith Gaughan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2005 12:37 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: WDDX Replacement Attempt (was RE: Ajax and CFCs)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jim Davis wrote:
-Original Message-
From
-
-Original Message-
From: Jim Davis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: dinsdag 16 augustus 2005 16:29
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Ajax and CFCs
\ -Original Message-
From: Micha Schopman
Do you know any AJAX library or code sample that consumes CF web
services (SOAP) natively?
Neuromancer (http://www.robrohan.com/projects/neuromancer/ ) does. It's
quite a bit more complex (as a library) that I would generally like to see
and focuses a lot on interface functionality that
Hi,
I found another option for creating an AJAX interface to a CF
application: calling a CFC's method with the URL parameters, it will
return the result in WDDX format.
Do you think it is a good solution?
Someone mentioned that the WDDX format is pretty old and that the JS
code is not updated
On Tuesday 16 August 2005 17:27, Jim Davis wrote:
It's no slower than any other XML standard.
It's slower than MM's query2xml, which produces more compact XML.
The XMl size is important if are are shifting more than a few dozen records
back and forth, and expect enough performance to use it in
On Tuesday 16 August 2005 17:21, Jim Davis wrote:
And once that's done you're dealing with native objects which are
quick-as-you-please.
There is that.
And if you go the whole hog and do client-side XSLT to display the content
too, that'll be the slowest bit anyway, apart from the actual
-Original Message-
From: wolf2k5 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2005 4:35 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Ajax and CFCs
Hi,
I found another option for creating an AJAX interface to a CF
application: calling a CFC's method with the URL parameters
-Original Message-
From: Thomas Chiverton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2005 5:07 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Ajax and CFCs
On Tuesday 16 August 2005 17:27, Jim Davis wrote:
It's no slower than any other XML standard.
It's slower than MM's query2xml
On 8/17/05, Jim Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
All of the implementations are just old (and, because they don't take
advantage of any of the modern capabilities, slower than you'd expect) - but
most still work fine.
There's also a minor issue (depending on how you feel about standards) that
-Original Message-
From: wolf2k5 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2005 1:39 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Ajax and CFCs
On 8/17/05, Jim Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
All of the implementations are just old (and, because they don't take
advantage of any
-
-Original Message-
From: Jim Davis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: dinsdag 16 augustus 2005 16:29
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Ajax and CFCs
\ -Original Message-
From: Micha Schopman [mailto
-Original Message-
From: Mike Chambers [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2005 6:47 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Ajax and CFCs
I think this was mentioned before, but check out
JSON
http://www.crockford.com/JSON/index.html
It is an very compact format
As various AJAX implementations popup on a weekly basis now, it is going to be
quite important for all the vendors to settle on the client/server XML
protocol. This reminds me of the early days of SOAP. Different companies
initially tried to do it their own way, and if W3C would not step in and
You mean like web services or WDDX?
mike chambers
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Terry Nisenbaum wrote:
Since there is no standard client/server XML protocol,
~|
Logware (www.logware.us): a new and convenient web-based time tracking
You mean like web services or WDDX?
mike chambers
Yes, I mean something like SOAP. SOAP would be a good candidate to implement in
JavaScript (Flash already has it), but the protocol has gotten to be too
complex and getting it right would be a complicated task - eventually it may
not worth the
On 8/15/05, Jim Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Although I'm sure it's incredibly useful to many for current purposes there
should be no server-side footprint. CF and BD already do SOAP-based
services via CFC, .NET does them automatically as well. WebSphere has
built-in thingies.
The best
On 8/15/05, Vince Bonfanti [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Once you realize it's the WebORB server that's actually invoking CFCs (on
behalf of the client), and not the client invoking CFCs directly, then it
should be clear that invoking the CFCs on BlueDragon directly makes more
sense than invoking
-
-Original Message-
From: wolf2k5 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: dinsdag 16 augustus 2005 10:35
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Ajax and CFCs
On 8/15/05, Jim Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Although I'm sure it's incredibly useful to many for current purposes
there
should be no server-side footprint
On 8/15/05, Christian Cantrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
CFCs can be invoked directly through the XMLHttpRequest object as long
as the CFC support remote access. I tend to cache my components and
access them through a controller/proxy which can also be easily done via
Ajax. And finally, you
component and is free and available for ColdFusion?
I believe someone else was alluding to such a solution earlier as well.
- Calvin
-Original Message-
From: wolf2k5 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 5:37 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Ajax and CFCs
On 8/15/05, Vince
On 8/16/05, Micha Schopman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just wondering, why would you want to communicate with SOAP envelopes in
the first place? If you are exchanging data with such complex structures
it is clearly a case of the wrong approach towards the Ajax pattern.
My plan it to do as little
CFCs running on CFMX locally this way). I've never tried this,
though, so you'd need to ask the WebORB developers to be sure.
Vince
-Original Message-
From: wolf2k5 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 5:37 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Ajax and CFCs
On 8/15/05
On Monday 15 August 2005 20:12, Jim Davis wrote:
2) Passing structured data once you access them.
It's the second bit that gets confusing as hell.
It's trival to write toXML() methods on all your objects.
MM even have a query2xml on DevNet.
--
Tom Chiverton
Advanced ColdFusion Programmer
: dinsdag 16 augustus 2005 11:48
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Ajax and CFCs
On 8/16/05, Micha Schopman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just wondering, why would you want to communicate with SOAP envelopes
in
the first place? If you are exchanging data with such complex
structures
it is clearly a case
-Original Message-
From: Thomas Chiverton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 7:28 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Ajax and CFCs
On Monday 15 August 2005 20:12, Jim Davis wrote:
2) Passing structured data once you access them.
It's the second bit that gets
-Original Message-
From: wolf2k5 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 5:35 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Ajax and CFCs
On 8/15/05, Jim Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Although I'm sure it's incredibly useful to many for current purposes
there
should
-
-Original Message-
From: Jim Davis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: dinsdag 16 augustus 2005 15:22
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Ajax and CFCs
-Original Message-
From: Thomas Chiverton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 7:28 AM
Message-
From: Thomas Chiverton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 7:28 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Ajax and CFCs
On Monday 15 August 2005 20:12, Jim Davis wrote:
2) Passing structured data once you access them.
It's the second bit that gets confusing as hell
:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 10:50 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Ajax and CFCs
What type of structured data? The only thing you need to pass is XML. A CFML
Struct can be serialized into a XMLDocument, and the same counts for Arrays,
Lists, Queries, etc. you name it.
Maybe I am
in regards to
AJAX...
-Original Message-
From: Micha Schopman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 10:50 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Ajax and CFCs
What type of structured data? The only thing you need to pass is XML. A CFML
Struct can be serialized
PROTECTED]
Sent: dinsdag 16 augustus 2005 15:57
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Ajax and CFCs
Yes, but a query will have a consistent xml structure that can then be
consistently accessed by JS (think WDDX).
I think that's what folks are after.
I'm not entirely sure why WDDX isn't being talked about more
-Original Message-
From: Micha Schopman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 10:50 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Ajax and CFCs
What type of structured data? The only thing you need to pass is XML. A
CFML
Struct can be serialized into a XMLDocument, and the same
-Original Message-
From: Rey Bango [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 11:11 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Ajax and CFCs
Two reasons:
1) Because MM does not want to continue to invest in developing WDDX
unless there is a substantial deman from its client base
Well, if enough people are interested, I'll go back to the powers that
be and see if they're interested in restarting it. Cranking up
OpenWDDX.org again would be easy. MM has to make that call.
Rey...
Jim Davis wrote:
-Original Message-
Personally I disagree when it comes to
\ -Original Message-
From: Micha Schopman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 11:12 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Ajax and CFCs
The amount of consistency is in the hands of the developer. It just is
about documenting the format.
You're thinking too small here
On Tuesday 16 August 2005 15:21, Jim Davis wrote:
Also it's trivial to write _A_ packet on the server and _A_ consumer on the
client for that one packet... but as you build more and more one-offs it
gets less and less trivial.
This is true.
However, it is hard to be generic and fast.
THe
On Tuesday 16 August 2005 15:56, Calvin Ward wrote:
I'm not entirely sure why WDDX isn't being talked about more in regards to
AJAX...
Because it's slow (client side) and heavy (libraries, and produced WDDX
strings).
--
Tom Chiverton
Advanced ColdFusion Programmer
-Original Message-
From: Thomas Chiverton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 11:34 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Ajax and CFCs
On Tuesday 16 August 2005 15:21, Jim Davis wrote:
Also it's trivial to write _A_ packet on the server and _A_ consumer
-Original Message-
From: Thomas Chiverton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 11:35 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Ajax and CFCs
On Tuesday 16 August 2005 15:56, Calvin Ward wrote:
I'm not entirely sure why WDDX isn't being talked about more in regards
://blog.newatlanta.com
New Atlanta Communications, LLC
http://www.newatlanta.com
-Original Message-
From: Andrew Grosset [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, August 14, 2005 8:43 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Ajax and CFCs
Very impressive demo, I found it here:
http
Communications, LLC
http://www.newatlanta.com
-Original Message-
From: Jim Davis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, August 15, 2005 1:04 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Ajax and CFCs
-Original Message-
From: Mike Chambers [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday
Bonfanti [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: maandag 15 augustus 2005 13:33
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Ajax and CFCs
Jim,
The WebORB implementation doesn't use SOAP or web services to invoke
CFCs on
BlueDragon--instead, WebORB invokes them directly via BlueDragon's
internal
APIs.
Also, WebORB works
: RE: Ajax and CFCs
Vince,
Have there been any specific reasons you know of for taking
such a proprietary approach or was it mainly aimed towards
best performance because of its close integration?
Micha Schopman
Project Manager
Modern Media, Databankweg 12 M, 3821 AL Amersfoort Tel
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, August 14, 2005 8:43 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Ajax and CFCs
Very impressive demo, I found it here:
http://blog.newatlanta.com/weborb/examples/richclientprimer/ja
vascript-ajax/phonebook-bluedragon.cfm
curious as to why it can't be made to work under CFMX
:21 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Ajax and CFCs
I think it helps to understand the WebORB architecture, which is best
explained on their web site:
http://www.themidnightcoders.com/weborb/aboutWeborb.htm
WebORB is first of all a server (its full name is WebORB Presentation
Server) that acts
, August 15, 2005 1:27 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Ajax and CFCs
I'm a little foggy on why I'd call a middle tier like WebORB to handle my
web service calls when I can easily use CF's built in Flash gateway or open
source AMF-based alternatives?
Cheers,
Kevin
-Original Message-
From: Vince
-
From: Kevin Aebig [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, August 15, 2005 1:27 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Ajax and CFCs
I'm a little foggy on why I'd call a middle tier like WebORB
to handle my web service calls when I can easily use CF's
built in Flash gateway or open source AMF
CFCs can be invoked directly through the XMLHttpRequest object as long
as the CFC support remote access. I tend to cache my components and
access them through a controller/proxy which can also be easily done via
Ajax. And finally, you can easily call CFM pages directly which return
either HTML
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Ajax and CFCs
I agree, it seems like the performance would be much better
to invoke the calls directly from the application server,
especially as the application and the client already natively
understand each other...
-Original Message-
From: Kevin Aebig
Message-
From: Calvin Ward [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, August 15, 2005 2:41 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Ajax and CFCs
I agree, it seems like the performance would be much better
to invoke the calls directly from the application server,
especially as the application
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, August 15, 2005 1:27 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Ajax and CFCs
I'm a little foggy on why I'd call a middle tier like WebORB
to handle my web service calls when I can easily use CF's
built in Flash gateway or open source AMF-based alternatives?
Cheers,
Kevin
Why is weborb even in this conversation?
mike chambers
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Vince Bonfanti wrote:
CF's built-in Flash gateway *is* a middle tier, just like WebORB. And, no,
you probably wouldn't want to use WebORB to invoke CFCs on CFMX (assuming
it's even possible).
Vince
their architecture
diagram that I provide a link to below).
Vince
-Original Message-
From: Kevin Aebig [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, August 15, 2005 1:27 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Ajax and CFCs
I'm a little foggy on why I'd call a middle tier like WebORB
to handle my web
Subject: RE: Ajax and CFCs
I agree, it seems like the performance would be much better
to invoke the calls directly from the application server,
especially as the application and the client already natively
understand each other...
-Original Message-
From: Kevin Aebig
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Ajax and CFCs
I agree, it seems like the performance would be much better to
invoke the calls directly from the application server, especially as
the application and the client already natively understand each
other...
-Original Message-
From
I feel like the point has been lost here.
There are two issues at question:
1) Accessing (connecting, consuming, whatever) web services via the client
(presumably via JavaScript).
2) Passing structured data once you access them.
EVERYTHING can do the first. It's easy to call CFCs (whether on
Message-
From: Jim Davis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, August 15, 2005 3:13 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Ajax and CFCs
I feel like the point has been lost here.
There are two issues at question:
1) Accessing (connecting, consuming, whatever) web services
via the client
-Original Message-
From: Vince Bonfanti [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, August 15, 2005 3:37 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Ajax and CFCs
Thanks, Jim. That's exactly what WebORB does--makes it easy to handle
structured data return from a CFC within your JavaScript. Take
. You really should take a look at it.
Vince
-Original Message-
From: Jim Davis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, August 15, 2005 3:51 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Ajax and CFCs
-Original Message-
From: Vince Bonfanti [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, August 15
-Original Message-
From: Vince Bonfanti [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, August 15, 2005 3:59 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Ajax and CFCs
I don't know anything at all about JSON, so I can't comment.
But, I think WebORB does exactly the same thing for invoking Java objects
I'm thinking that saying you don't need this in between... is like
saying that you don't need CF or any other scripting language because
you could build everything you want in 1's and 0's. I know that's a bit
of an extreme oversimplification, but I also see the value in a utility
that makes
Did you Google CFAJAX yet?
-Original Message-
From: wolf2k5 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, August 14, 2005 6:21 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Ajax and CFCs
Hi,
Do you know any example on how to integrate an AJAX web interface with
ColdFusion Components?
Do you know any good AJAX
-Original Message-
From: wolf2k5 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, August 14, 2005 7:21 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Ajax and CFCs
Hi,
Do you know any example on how to integrate an AJAX web interface with
ColdFusion Components?
Do you know any good AJAX client/server
WebORB 2.0 is a commercial product that includes a JavaScript/AJAX library
that lets you invoke CFCs (and other server-side objects and services) from
JavaScript:
http://www.themidnightcoders.com/weborb/aboutWeborb.htm
CFC support only works with BlueDragon, not CFMX. BlueDragon is not
Very impressive demo, I found it here:
http://blog.newatlanta.com/weborb/examples/richclientprimer/javascript-ajax/phonebook-bluedragon.cfm
curious as to why it can't be made to work under CFMX? !! :)
Andrew
WebORB 2.0 is a commercial product that includes a JavaScript/AJAX library
that lets
There is nothing there that couldn't be done with CFMX (or any other
server language).
It is a simple request / response using AJAX. JavaScript sends data to
ColdFusion, ColdFusion sends a response back, JavaScript updates the page.
mike chambers
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Andrew Grosset wrote:
Very
-Original Message-
From: Mike Chambers [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, August 15, 2005 12:51 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Ajax and CFCs
There is nothing there that couldn't be done with CFMX (or any other
server language).
It is a simple request / response using AJAX
99 matches
Mail list logo
