about Google vs. Verity when it Macromedia.com's rewrite used Google
instead of Verity? I certainly do and it seems your example only
furthers my point that implication is there. Further, I hope the
reasoning for using Google was other then what you just wrote because
if it was, then that means that Verity is not the correct choice for
high-load sites. I doubt that this the message Macromedia is striving
for.
-Matt
On Feb 8, 2004, at 2:49 PM, Simon Horwith wrote:
> There's a difference between Macromedia experimenting with CFML
> frameworks
> and their using their own product rather than a competitors to
> develop their
> own site... and you're right, some people might think Macromedia.com
> endorses MACH II or any other technology they use on their own
> site... but
> those people are wrong and quite honestly I don't think it's
> Macromedia's
> job to go out of their way to make that clear.��If you don't see an
> official
> endorsement on a product vendors site then it's not officially
> endorsed.��A
> good example of this is Macromedia's search engine.��They don't use
> verity -
> they use Google.��Does that mean they recommend and endorse the use of
> Google as opposed to a CFML implementation of Verity?��No.��It means
> that
> there's a time and a place to use one or the other, that their site
> (most
> likely due to the huge amount of load their search functionality is
> under at
> any given moment and the fct that Google has hardware as well as
> software
> solutions, etc.) uses Google for searches makes sense for them.��This
> shouldn't be mistaken for a mark against the use of Verity.��Verity
> is a
> great product, ColdFusion has a nice easy to use implementation of
> Verity,
> and it comes included with ColdFusion right out of the box.��It's not
> right
> for everyone all the time, but it's sweet and is a solution worth
> considering and implementing until you have a reason to turn to
> another
> vendors solution(s).
>
> ~Simon
>
> Simon Horwith
> CTO, Etrilogy Ltd.
> Member of Team Macromedia
> Macromedia Certified Instructor
> Certified Advanced ColdFusion MX Developer
> Certified Flash MX Developer
> CFDJList - List Administrator
> http://www.how2cf.com/
>
> ��-----Original Message-----
> ��From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ��Sent: 08 February 2004 19:34
> ��To: CF-Talk
> ��Subject: Re: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II
>
> ��It doesn't matter what the want people to believe; it matters what
> ��people actually believe. You and I may make our decisions based on
> what
> ��is best for us and/or the organizations that we work with. However,
> ��many others will look at what Macromedia is doing and take that as
> an
> ��endorsement. And not to be mean, but it doesn't matter what you use
> on
> ��your sites; it matters what Macromedia uses. They know it too, why
> else
> ��did they redo the whole thing in CFML in the first place if they
> ��weren't aware of it?
>
> ��-Matt
>
> ��On Feb 8, 2004, at 2:12 PM, Simon Horwith wrote:
>
> ��> I can say that as of the last time I spoke with folks at
> Macromedia,
> ��> the use
> ��>��of any framework or software on their site is not meant to be
> taken
> ��> as an
> ��>��official endorsement of it... which makes sense.��I experiment
> with
> ��> vendor
> ��>��products on sites I build all the time... it doesn't necessarily
> mean
> ��> I
> ��>��endorse them, just that I'm checking out what they have to offer.
> ��>
> ��>��~Simon
> ��>
> ��>��Simon Horwith
> ��>��CTO, Etrilogy Ltd.
> ��>��Member of Team Macromedia
> ��>��Macromedia Certified Instructor
> ��>��Certified Advanced ColdFusion MX Developer
> ��>��Certified Flash MX Developer
> ��>��CFDJList - List Administrator
> ��> http://www.how2cf.com/
> ��>
> ��>��� -----Original Message-----
> ��>��� From: Samuel R. Neff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ��>��� Sent: 08 February 2004 19:11
> ��>��� To: CF-Talk
> ��>��� Subject: RE: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II
> ��>
> ��>��� 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]
