Other than the part about a "parser" (BlueDragon is much more than that), I absolutely agree. Here's New Atlanta's position regarding the CFML "standard":
1) There is only one CFML standard, which is defined by: (a) the "specifications" as represented by Macromedia's published documentation for CF5/CFMX; and, (b) the "reference implementations", that is, CF5/CFMX. (Having said this, it should be noted that there are discrepancies between the documentation and actual implementations, and differences between the CF5 and CFMX implementations. Also, there are certain well-known authors who tend to publish CFML examples that are at odds with the documentation, but which happen to work on one or both of the CF5/MX implementations; these examples tend to then assume "pseudo-official" status among the CFML community. All of this makes life very interesting when trying to implement a "compliant" CFML server). 2) BlueDragon will attempt to fully implement the CFML standard as defined, above. Where we are unable to exactly match the CF5/MX implementation, we will: (a) clearly document the incompatibility as a "limitation" of BlueDragon; (b) make sure the BlueDragon parser clearly flags the incompatibility as a runtime error; and, (c) provide a workaround that is compatible with CF5/MX (if possible). 3) Any CFML enhancements introduced by BlueDragon are proprietary and are not part of the CFML standard, and will be clearly documented as such. Of course, we will be delighted if/when Macromedia adopts any of our enhancements as official parts of the CFML standard. Some background: New Atlanta has been developing products to Java standards (servlets, JSP, JDBC) and participating in Sun's Java Community Process (JCP) since 1997. The JCP isn't perfect, but it works pretty well, and as a small company we're very happy with the level of input it gives us. We like the "stewardship" Sun has over Java and would not want to see Java handed over to some standards body. We'd be very happy to see Macromedia start something similar to the JCP that would allow us and their customers some input into the CFML specification process. For that matter, we'd also like to see a tighter definition of CFML, and maybe an official compatibility test suite. We would not advocate that Macromedia turn CFML over to some third-party standards body. Cheers, Vince Bonfanti New Atlanta Communications, LLC http://www.newatlanta.com > -----Original Message----- > From: Judith Dinowitz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 10:51 PM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: Re: BlueDragon (was RE: How is CFMX J2EE implemented?) > > > I am all for healthy competition, but I'm wondering if > introducing new tags into a different flavor of ColdFusion is > a good idea. In the current economy, when we should be > working to strengthen ColdFusion in the marketplace, I think > this will lead to more confusion, a diversion of the > marketshare, and finally, a weakening of ColdFusion as a > platform. People are not going to just be saying, "Is > ColdFusion standard?" But they're going to be saying "What > version of ColdFusion should I use?" There's a ColdFusion > standard -- Allaire created ColdFusion, Macromedia owns it, > that's the standard. Anything else is a parser. > > Judith > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| 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
