surprised if for no other reason that I experienced a crashed page on the MM
site (give the redundancies, etc.). To notice and see Mach II exposed
like that and the fact that was being used by MM got me to thinking. Again
that was sort of a surprise because I have thought of Mach II as in an early
gestation period (roughly a year old).
// Jaye Morris | Principal Design Technologist
// jayeZERO.com | a design studio
// [EMAIL PROTECTED] | www.jayeZERO.com
_____
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2004 2:19 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II
Well I obviously disagree. The fact they are using a particular
framework implies that they choose it as opposed to other frameworks
because it was the best. The DRK is another example of where they
screwed up as it implies the same thing; that what they ship in the DRK
is best of breed. You don't see any of the major programming language
vendors doing that for good reason.
-Matt
On Feb 8, 2004, at 2:10 PM, Samuel R. Neff wrote:
> I think there's a difference between coming out and supporting a
> framework/standard/whatever and using it themselves. Simply using a
> framework for a portion of their own applications is not like they're
> saying
> everyone should use it. Quite to the contrary, none of the DRK code
> uses
> fusebox or Mach-II and that's much more of an insight into
> Macromedia's
> considered best practices (at least on the surface).
>
> Sam
>
> -----------------------------------------------
> Blog: http://www.rewindlife.com
> Charts: http://www.blinex.com/products/charting
> -----------------------------------------------
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2004 2:05 PM
> > 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
> >
>
_____
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
