Ok, sorry I misunderstood. 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 3:17 AM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: RE: Clarification - CFMX for J2EE w/ Remoting > > I'm not saying that. I'm saying that a single Flash movie shouldn't > "realistically" be calling ANY server side code sitting in front AND in > back > of a firewall if that requires two seperate gateways. > > ~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 3:06 AM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: RE: Clarification - CFMX for J2EE w/ Remoting > > > I don't really think it is a correct assumption that a single Flash > movie wouldn't want to call both CF and Java based services. There are > plenty of reasons why someone would mix CFML and Java on the backend and > if Macromedia is right about RIAs then mixed backends will need to be > able to be front-ended by Flash. > > 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 2:55 AM > > To: CF-Talk > > Subject: RE: Clarification - CFMX for J2EE w/ Remoting > > > > 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 Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
