> So you want Macromedia to write a best practices document for MS SQL > Server, another one for Oracle, another one for Informix, one for DB2, > one for Sybase, one for PostgreSQL, one for MySQL, one for SAPdb, one > for ......
No. The original request was: "There is an internationalization and globalization theme coming up on DevNet in the next few months. Would anyone like to suggest some specific ColdFusion topics? We obviously want to cover areas where people have the most difficulty and questions." Any my suggestion was using ColdFusion with two very popular XML-capable databases, namely MS SQL Server and Oracle 9iR2. I didn't suggest writing a slew of best practices documents. I was hoping to explore innovative techniques for leveraging ColdFusion's XML handling capabilities with the real world XML capabilities that these two database platforms offer. Real world cookbook-type techniques shown in actual code that developers can use directly to solve problems. > The purpose is to help people understand the concepts behind the > technology and give them the toolbox to apply those concepts to whatever > they happen to be using that day. Some may want to take a purist approach to understanding concepts, and others may instead choose to simply solve a specific problem directly. I agree that it is best to truly understand underlying concepts, but sometimes you just want to turn the lights on, not delve into the principles of electrically heating tungsten filaments in a vacuum. I love the concepts behind everything, and won't rest until I know them backward and foreward. Then I'll go about translating those concepts into deployable solutions. Some developers simply don't have the time or desire to delve into the concepts and then spend time in the trial-and-error translation layer between standards and platforms. This is the point I'm making. So I have to agree with you that the standards are absolutely necessary, but I hope you agree with me that, unless we go beyond standards into real world cookbook techniques using popular products the mainstream developer population uses, we end up with only theories and "neutered" code samples that don't leverage the available power of these products. This potential has already been paid for in these products' license fees, and management expects it to be used to their fullest potential. > So if you don't want to provide > examples for each and every platform that works with your product, you > might want to make it easy to translate those concepts from whatever > examples you provide to code for their platform. And for that, you need > a common frame of reference. What better common frame of reference is > there then the official standard? You assume that this translation is easy, but often it isn't because of the degree to which vendors extend beyond standards. Approaches, features, and functionality are often rather different between products, which often results in vastly different solutions. Sometimes the code in one vendor's solution to a problem is barely comparable to the code in another vendor's solution. > Sure, it would be nice if Macromedia wrote a best practices document for > every dbms that exists, but we all know that is not going to happen. So > instead of picking one or two and conveniently forgetting the rest, why > not write it in such a way that you empower everybody to translate it to > his own platform? I don't see it as out of the question, actually. MM could create a separate set of solutions for each DBMS product with specific XML capabilities, plus a generic solution for databases that don't have native XML handling. > Besides, if you choose the right examples, very little to no translation > is needed. I believe you are incorrect here once you step outside of the theoretical and into the details of real world implementation. The devil is in the details of what techniques actually deploy best on each platform, and they can look very different. > Like if you write about extracting year or month from a date, > use Oracle as an example and you have the exact SQL:1999 standard. If > you write about stored procedures, use DB2 as an example and you have > the exact SQL:1999 standard. > But don't use MS SQL Server to explain either one. Thanks for debating this with me. You bring up some excellent points. Respectfully, Adam Phillip Churvis Advanced Intensive ColdFusion MX Training http://www.ColdFusionTraining.com E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: 770-446-8866 Team Macromedia Volunteer for ColdFusion http://www.macromedia.com/support/forums/team_macromedia/ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| 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 Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
