I agree - it's not an ideal solution. That said, we live in the real world and if invoking some functionality as web services is the only financially realistic alternative right now to purchasing two gateways, then I'm all for that. Anyway - as for the topic of actually installing two gateways - I agree - it's a horrible practice for accessing code in the same application. What I was suggesting is that the only time it might make sense for one company to have two flash gatewas is if one gateway is able to access code that is sitting in front of a firewall and another has access to code sitting behind a firewall. I assumed the two would not be used from a single Flash movie and thus, not from a single web application.
~Simon Simon Horwith Macromedia Certified Instructor Certified Advanced ColdFusion MX Developer Certified Flash MX Developer CFDJList - List Administrator Fig Leaf Software 1400 16th St NW, # 220 Washington DC 20036 202.797.6570 (direct line) http://www.figleaf.com -----Original Message----- From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, 04 February, 2003 2:38 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Clarification - CFMX for J2EE w/ Remoting Passing WSDL URLs I think is a horrible idea. The overhead alone of using a web service to proxy another web service on the same machine just doesn't make sense. Dave Gruber suggest using the Flash gateway that comes standard with JRun (deployed in the "flashservices" context) for accessing Java objects via the Java* gateway adapters. Then use the Flash gateway that comes with CFMX/J2EE (deployed in whatever context we decided, by default "cfmx") to access CFCs/CFMs via the CF* gateway adapters. However, this configuration is not an acceptable solution for at least 2 reasons. First, we'd have to include our code base in the JVM classpath so that both CFMX/J2EE and the Jrun Flash gateway can access it. This undermines the classloader isolation that one gets by deploying in separate .war/.ear applications. A practice not suggested (or available to us) for production usage. Second, this is only a solution when using JRun4. No other J2EE appserver vendor will have another Flash gateway we can rely on. Moreover, using two different Flash gateways to access code in the same web application is silly. The Flash gateway that is part of CFMX/J2EE is (for our purposes) the same as the one that comes with JRun. The only reason we cannot use the CFMX/J2EE Flash gateway is because the code is written such that the gateway will only load adapters to support *either* CF-based objects or Java-based objects, but not both. The way it determines what adapters to load depends on what classes exist in the current classloader's classpath. Therefore, if the Flash gateway finds CFMX/J2EE classes, it won't load adapters to support remoting to Java-based objects. Matt Liotta President & CEO Montara Software, Inc. http://www.montarasoftware.com/ 888-408-0900 x901 > -----Original Message----- > From: Simon Horwith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2003 2:30 AM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: RE: Clarification - CFMX for J2EE w/ Remoting > > technically, there is an xml entry (forgive me, I canno remember where it > is > right now) that allows you to modify the port used by the Flash Gateway. > In > theory, you could run both side by side, but the only benefit you'd gain > is > the ability to call local files for that gateway application server, with > paths rather than full WSDL urls. It really makes more sense (to me > anyway) > to set-up a single gateway (CFMX, Java, or .NET) and make all calls via > that > gateway. If that means you've got to explicitly pass wsdl urls to the > gateway, so be it. I do however, see the benefit to setting up two > gateway > urls on seperate machines, when some remote resources are behind a > firewall > and others are in front of it. > > ~Simon > > Simon Horwith > Macromedia Certified Instructor > Certified Advanced ColdFusion MX Developer > Certified Flash MX Developer > CFDJList - List Administrator > Fig Leaf Software > 1400 16th St NW, # 220 > Washington DC 20036 > 202.797.6570 (direct line) > http://www.figleaf.com > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, 04 February, 2003 2:19 AM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: RE: Clarification - CFMX for J2EE w/ Remoting > > > You cannot have the CF Flash gateway and the Java Flash gateway deployed > in the same context. For many, this effectively means that you can't > call both CF and Java code from Flash unless you proxy the Java calls > through CF. > > I have raised this issue many times with Macromedia and they still won't > give me a useful response. I suspect it is only a matter of time before > more people attempt to use both CF and Java code with Flash and find it > doesn't work as expected. > > Matt Liotta > President & CEO > Montara Software, Inc. > http://www.montarasoftware.com/ > 888-408-0900 x901 > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Stacy Young [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2003 12:39 AM > > To: CF-Talk > > Subject: Clarification - CFMX for J2EE w/ Remoting > > > > Would it be accurate to say that in order to use Flash Remoting for > both > > > > CFMX and Java applications on the same WebLogic server we'd need CFMX > > for J2EE and Flash Remoting for Java? I know this has been covered > > before...but I wasn't about to buy at that time and missed some of the > > details. :-) > > > > Cheers, > > > > Stace > > > > AVIS IMPORTANT: > > ------------------------------- > > Les informations contenues dans le present document et ses pieces > jointes > > sont strictement confidentielles et reservees a l'usage de la (des) > > personne(s) a qui il est adresse. Si vous n'etes pas le destinataire, > > soyez avise que toute divulgation, distribution, copie, ou autre > > utilisation de ces informations est strictement prohibee. Si vous avez > > recu ce document par erreur, veuillez s'il vous plait communiquer > > immediatement avec l'expediteur et detruire ce document sans en faire > de > > copie sous quelque forme. > > > > WARNING: > > ------------------------------- > > The information contained in this document and attachments is > confidential > > and intended only for the person(s) named above. If you are not the > > intended recipient you are hereby notified that any disclosure, > copying, > > distribution, or any other use of the information is strictly > prohibited. > > If you have received this document by mistake, please notify the > sender > > immediately and destroy this document and attachments without making > any > > copy of any kind. > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| 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 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
