No, BD is a parser for the CFML language. It takes CFML and gives out a result AS IF it was running on ColdFusion.
> BlueDragon is not a copy of ColdFusion; it is an implementation of CFML. > > Matt Liotta > President & CEO > Montara Software, Inc. > http://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 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 > > rightfully > > so. If the creator of a work can lose ownership because someone else > makes > > use of it, then why bother creating it in the first place. Just wait > for > > someone else to create something and steal it from them. > > I have nothing against Blue Dragon, CF_Anywhere and every other CF > parser > > that exists. I think it's a great thing that they feel CF is a strong > > enough > > language that they would even want to write a parser for it. But I do > have > > to recognize that the language is owned by MM and they have every > right to > > say what's part or not part of it. The fact that MM says what's in the > > language but is willing to listen to our suggestions gives as much of > a > > level playing field as having the language controlled by someone else. > > > > > 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! > > > > > > 1 is currently MM -- it would be counterproductive for others to > offer > > > dialects of the language that are specific to an implementation > > > > > > 2 is currently MM & BD -- if BD (or others) are successful, then > > > ownership/control of the CFML language should pass to a 3rd-party > > > standards group -- then implementers could compete on a level > playing > > > field. > > > > > > I would personally prefer that BD force MM to relinquish control of > the > > > language by providing better implementations/lower costs; rather > than > > > alternative CFLM commands and functions. > > > > > > Dick > > > > > > BTW, Vince, I'd like typing of variables and Nulls in CFML :) > > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| 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 Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com
