> Loathe, can you store that session data in a database with > ease? If so, what database? Can you write your own session > handler that integrates with the CF session handler?
Yes, any, yes. I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "integration", though, so you might want to provide more specific detail. It's worth pointing out that CF sessions can be the same as J2EE sessions, so all of the things you can do from J2EE web apps you can also do from CF. > To back up some of what Phil said, do what ScottGu did here: > http://blogs.katapultmedia.com/jb2/2006/09/scottgu_linq_aspnet > _iis_7_and.html. > Do that in the amount of time he did it and I will sing praises. :-) I didn't really see anything there so out of the ordinary. Of course, I didn't see the presentation. And I should mention that IIS 7 is not yet available for public use. > * custom authentication framework How hard is it to track a session variable? > * creating the paging/sorting code for the table Server-side paging and sorting, or AJAX paging and sorting? There are lots of alternatives here, but none are especially difficult to implement, and once you've done it the way you like it, you can easily reuse that sort of code. > * separating admin content from public site content (with > the files being in the same directory) There's no reason why you can't easily have per-page authorization checking in CF; many of our applications do this. It's typically not as simple as "admin" vs "public", though - most complex systems require much more granular permissions than this. Again, though, you write this once and its yours for life. > * (if CF) installing some sort of module in IIS (if possible, > pending shared server vs dedicated) for url rewriting (or "spoofing > it" with url reading/parsing) Many, many alternatives here. It takes about 5 minutes to install ISAPI_Rewrite. Of course, Apache comes with mod_rewrite. You can also do useful preprocessing with servlet filters. Again, this stuff isn't complicated, and once you've done it the first time, it's easy to do again. > * creating web services (or whatever is needed for your chosen > Ajax framework) for your app to make Ajax calls with the same > authetication implemented How hard is that for you to do in CF, seriously? You can use the same HTTP authentication stuff that you do with regular pages, if you like. > * etc, etc, etc, etc, etc. That, on the other hand, is quite difficult to match in CF. In summary, I feel confident that, if required, I could give a two-hour presentation in which I did all of those things in CF. > The issue here is the power of .net vs CF. .net is > enterprise...bottom line. > You can build an end to end app in .net (mobile, web, > desktop). CF is only web-based so you can only compare > asp.net to CF, to be fair about it. It's always a bit unsettling for me to hear Microsoft products and "enterprise" in the same sentence, even though I've long believed that they can work in the enterprise. And yes, you can build mobile, web and desktop applications with .NET - I'm a big fan of the .NET Compact Framework, myself. But you're not building one application at that point, you're building three applications. Those applications might share some common components, and even some of the same presentation logic, but they'll still be three distinct applications. And, aside from the web portions, your Microsoft applications will only run on Microsoft products - you'll have a heck of a time deploying your .NET CF apps to Blackberries. Right now, the enterprise runs Java. CF integrates nicely with Java. You will simply not find too much .NET in enterprise environments yet. I'm a big fan of MS products, generally, and I think they're often better than they're credited to be, but unless you buy into the idea of the "Microsoft stack", where everything you use comes from Microsoft, you don't really have viable solutions. Most enterprises have not bought into that idea yet. I don't know if they ever will. > Mobile, web, desktop blah blah blah. Dude, again...arguing > just to argue. I was merely clarifying that you can't compare > CF to .NET. There is no battle there. .NET as a whole is way > beyond CF for the simple fact that .NET is not a web > programming language like CF. ASP.NET is. That is the > comparison you make. Too many people compare .NET to CF...you > just can't. That is my only point. I suspect that most people here, being web developers, are only interested in ASP.NET, and when they compare CF to ".NET", what they really mean is ASP.NET. Of course, the proper comparison here is with Java. Java can be used to deliver all of these sorts of applications, on a wide variety of platforms. > I do agree that Adobe needs to reduce the price tag, > drastically. If CF was free (for example), there wouldn't be > much of a complaint by any of the other religious .net'ers, > php'ers, etc. Price is the biggest problem in CF. Enterprise products are, and have always been, expensive. I strongly suspect that Adobe would have difficulty selling CF as an enterprise product if they lowered the price. Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ Fig Leaf Software provides the highest caliber vendor-authorized instruction at our training centers in Washington DC, Atlanta, Chicago, Baltimore, Northern Virginia, or on-site at your location. Visit http://training.figleaf.com/ for more information! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Introducing the Fusion Authority Quarterly Update. 80 pages of hard-hitting, up-to-date ColdFusion information by your peers, delivered to your door four times a year. http://www.fusionauthority.com/quarterly Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Talk/message.cfm/messageid:254796 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Talk/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
