Michael Dinowitz wrote:
I understand companies who have a fear of Macromedia and Microsoft
going away so they want the languages to be standardized. But let me
ask something really blunt. What standard do you mean? The MS
standard? The Java standard?
I think Java would be a good example.
2. throw in cfscript
Just to be anal - this is trivial with a UDF in CFMX. Yes, it would be
nicer for it to be 'native', but it would be a pretty simple UDF. I'll
add it to cflib.org if it isn't there already. I'll also update my
include() udf to support includes JSP. This will make it like BDs
://www.evoch.com/
-Original Message-
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 6:01 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: CFML standardization (was RE: BlueDragon (was RE: How is CFMX
J2EE implemented?))
Vince brings up a good point. Certainly, a little
On Monday, Oct 14, 2002, at 16:06 US/Pacific, Mosh Teitelbaum wrote:
Macromedia's perceived lack of response has been a fairly popular
topic on
this list. While I don't completely agree with the perception,
anything
that allows developers greater interaction with MM (such as a JCP-like
I should probably stay out of this--- oh, what the hell.
I think that a lot of excellent points have been made in this thread.
Here are my thoughts:
1) One entity should own and control the CFML language!
2) Any number of entities can/should offer competitive implementations
of the language!
On Monday, Oct 14, 2002, at 18:00 US/Pacific, Dick Applebaum wrote:
I should probably stay out of this--- oh, what the hell.
Now look what you've started! :)
BTW, Vince, I'd like typing of variables and Nulls in CFML :)
Hey Vince, ya wanna see my feature wishlist? It's *really* long!!
In no
Let me see if I follow your second argument here. I create a work. Someone
else copies the work. Because that someone else copied my work, I should
give up control of it to a third person? The entire system of intellectual
copywrite that exists at the moment would cause this to fail and
On Monday, October 14, 2002, at 06:14 PM, Sean A Corfield wrote:
Now look what you've started! :)
Gotcha -- I knew you were there.
Seriously, I do think that without control and standardization of the
CFML language, all implementations (and users) will suffer!
Dick
than a poke in the eye with a sharp
stick. Unless of course you just got poked in the eye with a sharp
stick.
-Original Message-
From: Dick Applebaum [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 6:26 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: CFML standardization (was RE: BlueDragon (was RE
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: CFML standardization (was RE: BlueDragon (was RE: How is
CFMX J2EE implemented?))
On Monday, Oct 14, 2002, at 18:00 US/Pacific, Dick Applebaum wrote:
I should probably stay out of this--- oh, what the hell.
Now look what you've started! :)
BTW, Vince, I'd like typing
now, MM is the only group that determines that.
Kevin
-Original Message-
From: Michael Dinowitz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 6:26 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: CFML standardization (was RE: BlueDragon (was RE: How is
CFMX J2EE implemented?))
Let me see if I
Never! We want it ALL! CF will take over the WORLD!
;)
| -Original Message-
| From: Ben Forta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
| Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 6:34 PM
| To: CF-Talk
| Subject: RE: CFML standardization (was RE: BlueDragon (was
| RE: How is CFMX J2EE implemented
language or code... we have proven this before...
Joe
-Original Message-
From: Sean A Corfield [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 9:14 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: CFML standardization (was RE: BlueDragon (was RE: How is
CFMX J2EE implemented?))
On Monday, Oct 14
, 2002 9:34 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: CFML standardization (was RE: BlueDragon (was RE: How is
CFMX J2EE implemented?))
You know, to make Basic coders happy, how about:
CFGOTO LABEL=
And to make us C/C++ coders happy, pre-processor directives:
CFDEFINE
CFIFDEF
CFIFNDEF
/CFIFNDEF
On Monday, Oct 14, 2002, at 19:00 US/Pacific, Joe Eugene wrote:
Sean... there are alot of instances.. where we need strongly typed
language or code... we have proven this before...
No, no one has *proven* anything. In fact, other languages manage just
fine without strong types - which
, October 14, 2002 6:26 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: CFML standardization (was RE: BlueDragon (was RE: How is
CFMX J2EE implemented?))
Let me see if I follow your second argument here. I create a work. Someone
else copies the work. Because that someone else copied my work, I should
give up
standardization (was RE: BlueDragon (was RE: How is
CFMX J2EE implemented?))
On Monday, Oct 14, 2002, at 19:00 US/Pacific, Joe Eugene wrote:
Sean... there are alot of instances.. where we need strongly typed
language or code... we have proven this before...
In fact, other languages manage just
, October 14, 2002 10:05 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: CFML standardization (was RE: BlueDragon (was RE: How is
CFMX J2EE implemented?))
Ben,
CFScript.. looks and adopts some good features of Java/C++.. why not
allow CFScript.. to have a strong language type? atleast as an optional
coding style
On Monday, October 14, 2002, at 06:42 PM, Miller, Kevin wrote:
Let me see if I follow your second argument here. I create a work.
Someone
else copies the work. Because that someone else copied my work, I
should
give up control of it to a third person? The entire system of
intellectual
If I understand correctly, the language, CFM, can not (or can no
longer) be copyrighted -- only implementations of the language. (I
don't necessarily agree with this, but apparently that's the way is is).
Can you give a source for this? I'd like to know why CFML can't be
copywrited.
What I
On Monday, Oct 14, 2002, at 19:30 US/Pacific, Dick Applebaum wrote:
Rather than have the chaos of Babel, at some point, if there are lots
of implementers of CFML, control of the (non-copyrighted) CFML language
should be placed in the hands on an independent entity.
Well, we told Sun that back
On Monday, October 14, 2002, at 07:41 PM, Michael Dinowitz wrote:
If I understand correctly, the language, CFM, can not (or can no
longer) be copyrighted -- only implementations of the language. (I
don't necessarily agree with this, but apparently that's the way is
is).
Can you give a
/
888-408-0900 x901
-Original Message-
From: Sean A Corfield [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 9:14 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: CFML standardization (was RE: BlueDragon (was RE: How is
CFMX
J2EE implemented?))
On Monday, Oct 14, 2002, at 18:00 US/Pacific, Dick
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: CFML standardization (was RE: BlueDragon (was RE: How is
CFMX
J2EE implemented?))
Let me see if I follow your second argument here. I create a work.
Someone
else copies the work. Because that someone else copied my work, I
should
give up control of it to a third person
-Original Message-
From: Michael Dinowitz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 6:26 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: CFML standardization (was RE: BlueDragon (was RE: How
is
CFMX J2EE implemented?))
Let me see if I follow your second argument here. I create
On Monday, Oct 14, 2002, at 20:04 US/Pacific, Matt Liotta wrote:
What happened to cffinally anyway? It was in the beta of Neo and then
later taken out.
I guess there wasn't time before launch to finish and fully QA the
implementation of that tag? A lot of things changed between the beta
and
-Original Message-
From: Michael Dinowitz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 9:26 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: CFML standardization (was RE: BlueDragon (was RE: How is
CFMX
J2EE implemented?))
Let me see if I follow your second argument here. I create
Can you give a source for this? I'd like to know why CFML can't be
copywrited.
I don't think CFML is copyrighted. I believe that CFML is simply a
syntax that is implemented by a copyrighted work. Thus, the
implementation is protected, but not the syntax. As it is, the full
syntax must be
://www.montarasoftware.com/
888-408-0900 x901
-Original Message-
From: Michael Dinowitz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 9:26 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: CFML standardization (was RE: BlueDragon (was RE: How
is
CFMX
J2EE implemented?))
Let me see if I
:)
-Original Message-
From: Ben Forta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 6:34 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: CFML standardization (was RE: BlueDragon (was RE: How is
CFMX J2EE implemented?))
You know, to make Basic coders happy, how about:
CFGOTO LABEL
30 matches
Mail list logo
