many ColdFusion applications at many companies, having worked for Allaire
and then Macromedia as a Consultant I see ColdFusion from a purely
functional standpoint. I definitely see the need for a Framework that is
widely dispersed and widely recognized.
In my work with Allaire I was exposed to �this is our version of Fusebox, it
�s better� at best or �we have a framework that John Foo a developer
introduced but now he�s gone and we don�t understand it� or �what�s a
framework, we prefer pasta style code or rather that�s what he have�.
There is a definite need for a Framework in most if not all Web Application
development. The more ubiquitous it is the better, this will definitely
help Web Application design and engineering overall IHMO.
As far as Macromedia using a Framework and one that is gaining recognition,
I see absolutely no harm in that at all. In addition, if the belief that
Sean Corfield�s coding guidelines are actually Macromedia�s encourages more
developers to use them, there is no harm in that either. Better Web
Applications will result from all of this.
Kind Regards - Mike Brunt
Webapper Services LLC
Web Site http://www.webapper.com
Blog http://www.webapper.net
Webapper <Web Application Specialists>
-----Original Message-----
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2004 11:05 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II
Of course, there is the point of view that Sun doesn't promote the use
of any one framework or methodology. In fact, they don't even imply
their preferred framework by making use of one. Further, even if any
particular Java vendor promoted a specific framework it wouldn't have
implications for the whole community since there is more than one
vendor.
At this point in time, the CFML community hasn't really accepted the
multi-vendor paradigm we now find ourselves in. Thus, when Macromedia
even implies a favorite that tells the community something very
important. Personally, I think Macromedia would do better to stay away
from getting involved with frameworks, methodologies, and standards. It
is a no win situation since whichever effort they support, the other
efforts will feel slighted. It shouldn't be that way... Macromedia
should want to support everything and anything that the CFML community
produces, but of course it is impossible to support everything.
Therefore, they shouldn't support anything in particular.
I think Sean Corfield's coding standards document is a perfect example
of where a useful contribution has turned into something else entirely.
There are many people who now consider the content of those documents
to be official from Macromedia, which can't be further from the truth.
Those documents didn't take into account the communities point of view;
they were decided on by Sean and his team. Further, they don't even
match the conventions used in CF's documentation over the years.
-Matt
On Feb 8, 2004, at 12:24 PM, Samuel R. Neff wrote:
> Jaye,
>
> You can program things from scratch all the time or you can use
> frameworks
> and available resources to make the program more efficiently. The
> official
> curriculum is always going to be about the base functionality of a
> language.
> You have to go outside that to learn about frameworks and
> extensions. The
> same is true in all languages. The official Sun curriculum teaches
> you how
> to develop Java apps and never mentions the tons of available
> open-source
> projects and frameworks available. However, a very large portion of
> Java
> projects will use Apache Struts as their framework as it provides
> functionality you don't need to redevelop.
>
> Besides, it's no surprise that MM is using Mach-II since Sean
> Corfield has
> been blogging about it for a while.
>
> Sam
>
> -----------------------------------------------
> Blog: http://www.rewindlife.com
> Charts: http://www.blinex.com/products/charting
> -----------------------------------------------
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jaye Morris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2004 12:17 PM
> > To: CF-Talk
> > Subject: RE: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II
> >
> > Ken,
> >
> > Just wanted to clarify why I made the point in the first
> > place. The deal was, I went to check out sites of the day.
> > Buddha boom, budda bing, the page is crashed. *I* see the
> > error page and notice that it's running on Mach
> > II. Now here is what I am actually Thinking. Some time
> > ago, I attended
> > Macromedia CF classes with Fig Leaf in Washington D.C.
> > (shameless plug for
> > them, but they did a great job and I was very pleased). The
> approved
> > Macromedia training talks about "Macromedia Development"
> > methods. Not "Fuse-box", or "Mach II" (though in reality I
> > have nothing against either. I just find them not necessary.
> > Said another way, you could wear a jacket outside, but you
> > don't have to.it's a matter of personal choice). The
> > argument goes, We teach you one way (roughly 1,000 per person
> > per class.
> > hotel, food, beer not included), but we will use something
> > different in real world practice. That is comparative to
> > Microsoft doing MS Office and building it all on someone
> > else's controls. I just find that a bit odd. It also
> > implies that the suggested application development methods
> > (just take a look at the applications development guide that
> > came with your CFMX CD-ROM) is not actually the best method.
> > If that is the case, then Macromedia should be supporting the
> > most sound application development methods that in their
> > documentation.
> >
> >
> >
> > // Jaye Morris | Principal Design Technologist
> >
> > // jayeZERO.com | a design studio
> >
> > // [EMAIL PROTECTED] | www.jayeZERO.com
>
_____
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
