> Okay, but I think you know what I mean....if not, create a gui with > Flash and connect it to a backend via Flash remoting.
Judging from the adverse reaction with MM's Exchange app on cf-talk, I think a lot of people aren't ready for MM's definition of "rich apps" quite yet. HTML will have a long life yet. > > > > >The > > > > > >>>methods that ASP.net uses to simulate a fat client just seem to > >>> > >>> > >>be so much > >> > >> > >>>kludge, it seems that its bound to make inefficient interfaces. > >>> > >>> > > > >Again, being judicious in the use of web controls is the key. > > > Problem is, Microsoft doesn't always promote judicious uses. They > usually include plenty of wizards and try to dumb down the interface so > that Joe Blow can create an application. Joe Blow has no chance of creating an app with .NET. Even making a database connection and binding a control is so fricking obfuscated, I'm not sure how Joe Blow would ever figure out what the hell a "SqlDataAdapter" does intuitively. Anyhow, getting back to your original point of "inefficient interfaces", I've done some pretty nice things in ASP.NET that take up very few lines of code that would be a pain to do in CF. Mind you, it works the other way as well. Have you tried using VS.NET? Not the world's friendliest IDE, by far. And speaking of dumbed down interfaces, how about DWMX? > > > > > > > > >>>Another thing that caught my attention was when the author said > >>> > >>> > >>"using the > >> > >> > >>>.net > >>>framework allows the programmer to access the entire machine". > >>> > >>> > >>Is this > >> > >> > >>>something that we really want given Microsofts security issues in > >>> > >>> > >>the past. > >> > >> > >>>Will this open up more machines to successful hacking attempts? > >>> > >>> > >>I'm not > >> > >> > >>>enough > >>>of a systems programmer to know this, it just perked up my ears > >>> > >>> > >>when I read it > >> > >> > >>>though. > >>> > >>> > > > >Server machine... server machine... > > > > Yes, exactly, the server machine....but you make it sound like that > isn't that big of a deal. IIS has enough holes already. What happens > when you open up the **server** even more? How is this any different than, say, CFEXECUTE, or CFREGISTRY, or CFOBJECT, or CFFILE, or CFDIRECTORY, or CFHTTP, or CFFTP? Do you even know how .NET runs on a server machine, or is this more speculation on your part? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=5 Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
