>COM is NOT being abandoned by MS. Dave and Steve failed to back that >statement up in the last thread.
Sorry I couldn't respond within your timeframe, but: (Watch for the wrap) <http://msdn.microsoft.com/vbasic/techinfo/articles/upgrade/entupgrade.asp> Straight from the horse's mouth: ".NET encompasses the evolution of a number of existing technologies built on a new platform that is designed to eventually replace COM." Or: "Code for the .NET platform runs under the control of the common language runtime, a new runtime architecture designed to replace COM, Microsoft Transaction Server (MTS), COM+, and the need for a Visual Basic runtime layer." I want to also point out that I said that MS looks to be *abandoning* COM, not *ceasing support* for it. It is from that standpoint that I commented that the onus shouldn't be on MM to provide a better way for a *third-party COM object* to integrate with CFMX in light of the fact that the technology is being phased out. It's up to the ActivePDF people to look into upgrading their product, perhaps to a Java-based tool. However, several people have commented that the company doesn't seem to have any interest in that. Who's fault is that? Not MM's in my opinion. Also, I believe that MM only stated that they would "provide backwards-compatibility with previous versions of CF." I don't recall any documents or announcements saying that "all previous features will work just as fast and efficiently in CFMX." That doesn't make you very happy, I'm sure, but that's the reality. Accept the statement at face value and nothing more. I can't and won't argue the fact that the CFMX updater breaks ActivePDF, as I've never used the product, nor do I use COM. To me, that's a separate issue concerning a piece of functionality that was working and now no longer works. Just make sure you report it as a bug, if it indeed is one. >Ok. So even is MS comes up with a replacement for COM, you basically >jumping on the bandwagon of a technology isn't even in public beta yet! >Waiting for office 11 is not a realistic solution for anyone. Upgrading >to Office 11 isn't either. I'm not jumping on any bandwagon. I'm too lazy and out of shape. You can either join the Java camp, the .NET camp, both, or risk being left on the fringes of future web development. You don't have to like it, but show me an alternative that is a viable alternative to the above two camps. >Gee upgrade your entire corporation to Office 11, or just move you web >systems to .NET and continue to use COM. Again, if MM doesn't fix this >critical issue, they will eventually lose the market. Again, upgrading to .NET and continuing to use COM does not seem to be a wise solution, based on the above article. Also, in a recent ComputerWorld article (October 7, 2002 print edition), a cover article titled "Vendors Try to Simplify J2EE" talks all about how large vendors (BEA, IBM, AltoWeb) are trying desperately to simplify the low-level syntax of Java so that the time-to-market is reduced and increases the attraction of Java among corporate developers. Hmmm, sounds like a tag-based solution might be a good way to accomplish this. Oh wait, COLDFUSION MX DOES THIS ALREADY!! Look, I think a lot of people keep thinking of CFMX as "CF 6.0." While to a certain extent that might be true, I personally think of it as "ColdFusion 1.0 on steroids". It doesn't suffer from the immaturity of a 1.0 product, but it does have kinks that need to be worked out based on re-writing THE ENTIRE CODE BASE in Java. If you don't want to upgrade, don't! Who's forcing you? I love being on the latest version of my favorite software too, but sometimes it just doesn't suit my needs. >Again, with no proof of COM being axed on MS.com, I have to say that >your facts have been skewed by MM and Fig Leaf. I think the above statement has been both disproven, and the second part is utterly ridiculous. I have to say that I think I've substantiated my facts with pertinent references. As I said before, you don't have to agree with me, but facts are facts. Regards, Dave. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm
