state their reasons for using Google or that people chose to ignore their
reasons. I'm sure I could look at the code for MACH II and find dozens of
lines of code (at least) that probably "violate" Macromedia's recommended
coding practices... that doesn't mean there's anything controversial about
them using it. Certain solutions are better suited for certain problems.
If a certain section of Macromedia's site required very heavy COM use, I'd
hope they'd use .NET to build it... .NET is better at that. I don't think
it's fair for anyone to assume that "Verity is not the correct choice for
high-load sites" until they have defined "high-load". This is especially
true when using Macromedia as an example - how many of us are working on
sites that are under the same stress as theirs? Probably not many. I don't
recall ever reading that Verity is the best solution for ALL of my search
needs anywhere on Macromedia's site. It's powerful and easy to use, and it
has pretty-much always suited my and my clients' needs. I agree with you
that some people will make assumptions because of what Macromedia does in
practice, and that's a sad fact of life that there's no way around.
~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 20:05
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II
Interesting example you choose to use. Do you not remember all the flak
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]
