Ok, I may be jumping in here a little late, but in my experience. (I have been using CF since version 4 and Flash since version 3). In Flash version 4, I just did not get it. Nothing made any since to me. Now when Flash 5 came out, I finally understood it, I don't know if it was Flash 5 or if it was some luck, I really didn't make anything but stupid simple CD presentations (kind of like powerpoint). Untill Flash MX came out, Flash was just something to play with, it really had no use for me, besides silly flash ads and CD presentations.
Since Flash MX, I have been able to create some really cool interfaces for my CF projects. Some of which include a text editor which allows one to type in a news story (think of a blog entry) and then when they are connected have it publish to the CF server, Dynamic site widgets, such as newsletter signups, simple IM's and of course flash forms. I understand people having frustrations, I just don't understand why Flash should be more like HTML+Time or SVG. I think Flash should stay just as it is. The only thing I would like to have more documentation on is the Flash Gateway, I consistently have problems connecting to it. Anyways, Flash is really cool, once you take some time to get familiar with it. To learn flash (at least this is how I did) is to start by creating some simple useless animations. You really need to understand the timeline if you want to make an animation. But if not and you just want a RIA, think of each frame as a page. Thinking this way it took me no time at all to get a grasp of it. Now for CF. I love CF, CF is the only thing that I use (unless forced to, by some COM problems are indexing server searches) for development. I have always been a fan of XML, I have been following it since HTMLGoodies.Com (You remember Joe don't you? :) ) first referenced it in one of Joe's tutorials 4 or 5 years ago. I was always frustrated by CF's lack of ability to work with XML in 5 and exspecially 4. When I got to be a part of the NEO beta program I was thrilled to see XMLSearch, XMLParse(), etc. With the new XML abilities of CFMX and the abilities of Flash's, I have found it extremely simple to whip up something really cool, in no-time. It is far much better than forcing CF to write a txt file being carefull not to leave any white space (which is a really pain in the ass) so Flash 5- would be able to pick it up. I think I rambled so long that I forgot what my point was. But if I can do it, anyone can. It just takes a few late nights and long weekends to get a grasp of the Flash thing. The biggest thing IMO to learning Flash, is to not think of it as you do CF, think of it as a movie and at certain times in that movie you pause to make a request for data, retrieve the data, massage the data and continue on with the show. As far as DWMX, I have worked with DW since version 2 and I found it way to cool. I could make my own options (as long as you had a great deal experience with Java Script). If DW didn't have something I could just make it. DWMX follows this tradition and other than being slow loading at times, I have no quames against it. I have not used any of the new CF features in it, such as CF studio's CF buttons at the top of the screen, they just sit there. If you are a hard-core coder use Notepad, if your semi-lazy use CF studio, if your ready to simplify and shorten your programming time, use DWMX. Just my oppinion take it as you will. Take a deep breath and jump, it's a long way down, but once on the ground it's sort-of nervana. My tool set in order of priority: 1. CFMX 2. Beyond Compare 3. DWMX 4. XML Spy 5. FLMX 6. Photoshop 7 6. FWMX 7. Notepad ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sean A Corfield" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2003 8:48 PM Subject: Re: Macromedia at Risk (Was OT - Fusebox for Flash?) > On Saturday, Mar 1, 2003, at 20:29 US/Pacific, S. Isaac Dealey wrote: > > Granted, part of the reason I have a tough time adjusting to the Flash > > MX UI > > may be largely because I've not read much of the documentation on how > > to > > accomplish these sorts of things with ActionScript. But I suspect also > > that > > if a focus were given to developing that sort of tool (emphasis on > > text vs. > > the visual stage) that the documentation would also follow that > > approach and > > focus on doing things with code, the way we're used to. > > Well, as I say, we mostly have just a line of code in our .fla that > says: > #include "Stuff.as" > and then use DWMX to write Stuff.as and all the other .as files that it > includes. Everything can be done in pure text mode. Then you just > "publish" to .swf using the Flash MX tool. > > Admittedly, some component and layout issues are much easier to achieve > in the authoring tool than in pure ActionScript but the work you do in > the authoring environment can be minimal. > > > documentation for Flash MX as difficult to use as the interface itself > > (and > > it's easily broken by changes to the JVM on the host machine), so I > > don't > > I don't follow you - what has Flash MX got to do with the JVM? > > > I suppose for starters, this url needs to not produce a 404 error: > > > > http://livedocs.macromedia.com/flashmxdocs/dochome.jsp > > Well, we don't have livedocs for every product yet, see: > > http://livedocs.macromedia.com/ > > for what is available today. We're looking at putting other > documentation online (although the LiveDocs system really needs a bit > of an overhaul before we can do that!). > > > I think there's a lot of merit in the previous suggestion of a > > Flash authoring tool (or mode in the existing tool) that relegates the > > stage > > off to a pull-down menu somewhere or a separate window all-together as > > a > > My default Flash environment layout has the Actions panel as its focus > (when I write "little" movies I still do all the scripting direct > inside Flash. I only switch to the stage if I want to lay some things > out visually. > > > default authoring environment, if for no other reason than that it > > forces > > the documentation to be changed to cater to us cf developers who are > > used to > > Of course, you also need to consider that there are about three times > as many Flash users as there are ColdFusion users but your point is > well taken - "Flash developer" documentation will likely be structured > very differently from "Flash designer" documentation. > > > Again, playing devil's advocate, I think the problem that some CF > > developers > > have had with Contribute (myself not included, so I'm sure I'm not > > really > > speaking for anyone in particular), is that it's seen as a waste of > > resources which might have otherwise been spent on more ColdFusion > > Server > > development. > > Well, the Contribute team is a totally separate group of people to the > CF server team, with a different skill set. If we hadn't had those > people build Contribute, they certainly wouldn't have worked on CF. And > there's only a certain number of people you can reasonably have all > working on the same code base at any one time if you want to stay > efficient. The argument that Contribute took resources away from CF > server is, frankly, a very silly one indeed! > > Sean A Corfield -- http://www.corfield.org/blog/ > > "If you're not annoying somebody, you're not really alive." > -- Margaret Atwood > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| 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
