Hello Sean, This thread has raised a couple of questions in my mind which i'd appreciate your thoughts on.
Can you tell us if you have any extra jars in your server classpath? I'm especially interested in third party stuff rather than in house utilities or suchlike. Last year i worked on a hybrid cfmx/java project where the business logic was in EJBs and the gui and front end controller was in cfmx/fusebox3. The java guys made us some business delegates which we wrapped in cfcs and the whole process was reasonably painless (although we did have some looong "discussions" between the two ends of the room). The reason i ask is that i was looking through the various jars in cfmx - esp. the netcomponents jar - and i saw tasty looking objects for interacting with nntp servers, network time servers, and other things of that kind which aren't (yet?) exposed as cfml tags. This got me thinking about a few other things i've looked at, specifically workflow management frameworks written in java, which could come in very handy. Since i guess you guys push the envelope of cf usage i thought you'd be the person to ask. Regs, /t >-----Original Message----- >From: Sean Corfield [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Monday, April 25, 2005 10:46 PM >To: CF-Talk >Subject: Re: Using Java Classes rather than CFC's? > >On 4/22/05, Bob Jacoby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Let me state upfront that my primary background is in java >so I'll admit >> to some bias... :) > >Let me state upfront that my primary backgrouund is in computer >language design and compiler writing so I'll admit to some bias... :) > >> However, I'm >> not as convinced with its ability to perform complex >business logic and >> integrate with other systems. > >We use CFMX for pretty much all of our integration work because of its >ability to handle, out-of-the-box, web services, XML parsing, various >protocol handling (FTP, HTTP), JMS message handling, etc. CFMX 7 runs >on all of our primary IT systems handling all of the messaging and >interaction between them (mostly "headless", i.e., no web interface). >It also powers fifty applications on macromedia.com handling up to >40,000 concurrent sessions during morning peak traffic - there's some >pretty complex business logic behind those applications. > >> While I like the concept of CFCs and think >> it's a great addition they lack of some OO capabilities >(polymorphism, >> overloading methods, etc) that limit what you can do with them. > >CFCs have polymorphism. Overloading is highly overrated (it's useful >for library builders but causes a lot of problems for 'end user' style >application developers - as someone who spent eight years on the >ANSI/ISO C++ Standards Committees I can vouch for just how complex and >confusing the rules behind overloading are: we had a dedicated team of >language experts trying to formulate the rules and wording for >overloading to remove ambiguity... and we weren't entirely >successful). > >> ColdFusion, for all intensive purposes, is a procedural language. > >So is C but Bjarne did a pretty good job of adding classes to it and >turning it into C++. Java is also a procedural language under the hood >in many ways (all those built-in types not being classes leads to >procedural code!). All OO languages need some procedural machinery and >many of them have very strong procedural roots... > >> Bolting on some OO capabilities is nice, but I doubt it'll ever be a >> true OO language, and many people, myself included, don't >want it to be. > >And what is a "true OO language" in your opinion? Smalltalk perhaps? >It certainly isn't Java any more than it would be C++... :) > >> I think it'd add complexity to the point where CF becomes as >complex to >> write as java. > >As a language designer I'd say you can have simple OO languages. The >complexity of Java has very little to do with the fact that it is an >OO language. There are a lot of complex bells and whistles in Java - >and Java 5 only made that "worse" in many ways (especially introducing >subtle implicit casting via autoboxing and the weird typesafe enum >stuff). Don't get me wrong: I like Java well enough - I've been >programming in it for eight years now - but it's lost a lot of its >original simplicity! > >> Java is a beast >> that takes quite a bit of time to learn and truly >understand, let alone >> write decent code. > >Amen, brother! > >> I personally >> hate the fact that CF doesn't support the concept of "null". > >JavaCast("null","") - see the docs: > >http://livedocs.macromedia.com/coldfusion/7/htmldocs/00000542.htm > >> In the end it always comes down to using the right tool for the job. >> And apply KISS. :) > >Amen to that too! >-- >Sean A Corfield -- http://corfield.org/ >Team Fusebox -- http://fusebox.org/ >Got Gmail? -- I have 50, yes 50, invites to give away! > >"If you're not annoying somebody, you're not really alive." >-- Margaret Atwood > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Logware (www.logware.us): a new and convenient web-based time tracking application. Start tracking and documenting hours spent on a project or with a client with Logware today. Try it for free with a 15 day trial account. http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=67 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:204375 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
