to leave our clients with the best result possible when we design and build
web applications. We want to make sure that they will be able to find
developers if needed who can understand what we did easily, who can enhance
what we did easily and efficiently. In addition we have several large
clients who want to adhere to recognized and well distributed
Standards/Frameworks not something designed by a particular single developer
and not used outside of that developers domain and influence. That sort of
framework would be of no use or interest to those sorts of clients. This
also has nothing to do with religion or politics but has everything to do
doing the best for our clients. A well designed/evolved Web Application
framework should be adaptable and usable for all types of Web Applications,
there should be no need to have different frameworks for different Web
Application needs.
I also don�t understand what you meant here- �If not, many will just assume
that is the case, which benefits no one except for the people behind MachII�
. Perhaps I am naïve here but I actually believe, Ben Edwards, Hal Helms and
Sean Corfield have the interests of the developer community at heart in
their work on Mach-ii. There are virtually no direct benefits to any of
them in putting the hours into designing and evolving Mach-ii.
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 11:46 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II
I hear this "secret sauce" argument all the time and frankly think it
is without merit. I have never walked into an organization and had
trouble hitting the ground running because I had never seen the
methodology, framework, or style in use at that organization. Further,
as an architect for many organizations it was my job to design the
methodology, framework, and style used in the organizations'
applications and I never encountered a solid programmer who had trouble
being productive from the beginning. Now all that may be anecdotal
evidence and it may be that I have no sense of how things really are,
but I don't really think that is the case. IMHO, using the same
methodology, framework, or style for every application is a disservice
to you and the organization. Every application has different
requirements, which should be taken into account before choosing a
methodology, framework, or style.
What I find to be the most amazing is how people don't make technical
decisions in the tech industry. If any industry should have less
religion and politics this should be the one. However, that is not the
case. People are all too happy to be dogmatic about their language,
their methodology, their framework, etc.
-Matt
On Feb 8, 2004, at 2:29 PM, Mike Brunt wrote:
> Good points Matt but I have a different point of view. Having
> architected
> 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]
