Oh well... J2EE is anything but rapid.. so you guys will be losing the rapid :)
It makes me wonder with these whole enterprise type licensure schemas exactly how off track people are going to get and what major shifts in the employee base will need to occur... These costs of change seemingly have to be factored and thus offset the cost of buying the CF licesnses... Its very similiar in my opinion to the people earlier on who said ASP is free, why would I pay for an app server... The answer was delivered in there bill, where the time was upto 60% bloat due to added complexity, debugging and time investment via ASP... With the Java solutions, I think the argument is relatively similar and has the taste of complexity and different programming mindset all over it... -paris Paris Lundis Founder Areaindex, L.L.C. http://www.areaindex.com http://www.pubcrawler.com 412-292-3135 [finding the future in the past, passing the future in the present] [connecting people, places and things] -----Original Message----- From: "Trey Rouse" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 13:23:27 -0500 Subject: CFMX for j2ee: Is it a solution? Was: How Good is the Job Market for ColdFusion? > CFMX for j2ee does not support our vendor solution (oracle). As per > my > original message, many .edu's and corporations have purchased bulk > licensure from oracle to support their databases that includes > oracles > j2ee server. I have raised this issue throughout the entire CFMX for > j2ee development cycle without a response. > > However, this goes far beyond CF's support of j2ee. For example, if > we > maintain some orgs developing in CFMX for j2ee, but other orgs do > native > j2ee programming, we would have to purchase cfmx for j2ee licensure > for > every j2ee server in our enterprise in order to share code out of the > cfmx development teams. And that holds to the caveat that CFMX for > j2ee > would even run on all major label j2ee servers in the marketplace, > which, as I've said it does not. > > As such, it is not a viable j2ee alternative in our enterprise, and > from > speaking with other enterprise and .edu folks, we are not alone in > this > conclusion. > > Believe me, I had hoped all along from the first incarnation I heard > about Neo/cfmx j2ee solutions that it would maintain CFML as a RAD > solution for our enterprise, but the delivered product is far shy of > that expectation. > > Trey Rouse > Rice University > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Mike Brunt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2002 12:59 PM > > To: CF-Talk > > Subject: RE: How Good is the Job Market for ColdFusion? > > > > Trey, apologies if I missing something here, but CFMX has J2EE > > capabilities. > > I know that sounds obvious but are they not considered to be > sufficient > > for > > your infrastructure? > > > > Kind Regards - Mike Brunt, CTO > > Webapper > > http://www.webapper.com > > Downey CA Office > > 562.243.6255 > > AIM - webappermb > > > > "Webapper - Making the NET work" > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Trey Rouse [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2002 10:38 AM > > To: CF-Talk > > Subject: RE: How Good is the Job Market for ColdFusion? > > > > > > I mostly agree with your position that CFML is a more rapid > development > > tool than j2ee. However, I think when you take a longer view and > > consider performance, security factors, availability of work force, > and > > most importantly: range of vendor support, the ground rapidly falls > out > > from under CFML solutions. > > > > But, more directly to the point you bring up, and why things happen > the > > way they do... In my experience, platform decisions and systems > support > > for these platforms are made at a tier above the development side > of a > > large organization. Often times it is summarily decided far up the > > corporate ladder. I know in our scenario, the systems folks that > urged > > us to move up to site licensing want us to recoup costs by not > running > > tandem technologies where not critically necessary. > > > > You're argument still stands true, but in reality developer > departments > > rarely carry enough decision making clout in most corporate or > > educational bureaucracies to drive these decisions. Unfortunately, > we > > all have a hard time making this argument, and when we do, we > mostly > > sound like we are just defending our turf. > > > > In my experience, solutions like j2ee seem to be winning in the > > enterprise marketplace as our desperate development teams can > openly > > share code and effort between sub organizations without additional > > licensure. Since j2ee code is far more easily distributed onto > > different vendor servers. > > > > When we factor in the duplication of effort that exists with some > groups > > running cf and others running j2ee, the fact that cf is more rapid > > begins not to hold as much water. > > > > > > Trey Rouse > > Rice University > > > > and related topics. http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.cfm > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| 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 Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in ColdFusion and related topics. http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.cfm
