(Mike, sorry...seems to have a mind of its own. There is some technical talk in Dave's post and mine, here, as well.)
Dude, what a long post. lol. I'll try to make sure I respond accordingly. :-) What I mean by integrate is more-so an extending. Without knowing Java, can you handle that with ease (being the key part)? Also, can a non-advanced user do it? (another key part) None of that stuff was out of the ordinary and yes, IIS 7 isn't out yet. I don't think I made mention of it being out of the ordinary either. Doing all of it in 2 hours with talking, etc included? CF out of the box can't do it. I'd be highly interested in seeing you do this. We can setup a Breezo and get you rockin' for the world to see. Just let me know when you want to make it happen and we can do so. If/once you do it, I will sing your praises, as I previously said I would. Tracking a session variable isn't all that took place. There was roles based authentication, etc which isn't done with the snap of a finger in CF. Yes, you could do per page auth in CF. Can you do it from 1 config file? You can, yes but you'd have to write that config file, create the "parsing" engine (if it is xml or ini, etc) to manage the values, and run with it. I've done them before on a smaller scale as well. The thing is, ASP.NETalready has that baked into it. Sure you could write your own and reuse but having to is the thing here. ASP.NET...you don't have to, unless you want to. BTW, this is a moot point for IIS7. web.confg is available to all languages now. A pageable, sortable, Ajax (or not) datagrid is available in other implementations (for CF and PHP; PHP has some impressive one's you can buy). Take that same time to research, buy one, figure out how to customize it, and set it up in your environment is much longer than dropping a grid on a page, setting a class or other styles, and enabling paging, sorting, etc through checkboxes or simple params to the tag. Time is the key here. I'm not saying url rewriting is complicated in CF. Never once did I mention that. What I did was compare the time it would take for you to buy, install, configure ISAPI_Rewrite, and setup your site to use it is much longer than it is to do it in ASP.NET. Speed is the key here. Ray Camden has a great url parser that allows you to use SES url's. I use it often. It isn't rewriting but a great alternative. Again, you could write your own and do all of that for reuse. ASP.NET, you don't have to. (see the theme here) WS in CF is easy. blah.cfc?wsdl is about as easy as it gets. :-) Integrating your custom authentication is available too. AGAIN, how long to implement that? Out of the box, your CFC is not protected by a login screen. If you do something with onReuqest, maybe but onRequest breaks Remoting calls but I'm not 100% sure on the same happening to WS. The thing with what I was saying is he didn't even have do any custom authentication. It just worked with no code changes major legwork. lol @ the etc, etc, etc. As said, none of it is terribly difficult. In 2 hours, no way you can take CF out of the box and build that from scratch. If you can, again, I will sing your praises and am willing to setup the preso whenever you are ready. Yes, those three apps will be separate (web, mobile, desktop). If done right, your heavy lifting is done in all three already and you can easily throw a new "view" on top of it to make it work. For instance, we have an app we're developing and the desktop app took about 30 minutes to build (initial version; wasn't robust or anything...just a base look at things). The core code was done already. You are correct with the .NET CF. It is only for apps that can deploy .NET CF. Although, the same goes for Flash Lite, etc. Enterprise can be argued, MS or not. The main part I stress when I say enterprise is a complete end to end solution. Yes, CF can integrate nicely with Java. I've always been impressed by it. CF developers on this list, raise your hand if you know Java? (my hand is down) Raise your hand if you are going to learn Java just to extend CF development? (my hand is half-way up. been wanting to for years but no time for a new language I will barely use) That is the key there. Java is a completely different language to learn. ASP.NET has C# and that's all you need to know (or vb, j#, etc). You are right. Java to .NET would be a better comparison. Java can run in many different environments but it seems they whole "write once, deploy everwhere" "mantra" never really took over the world like it seemed it was supposed to. Trust me, as said, I could care less about the price changing. I'd love it to...seriously. I know the issue of taking away millions of dollars in revenue for the sake of the community isn't realistic. Also selling it as Enterprise would be harder. You are on the money here. I should clarify that "Price is the biggest problem with CF" statement. That 100% means in the mind of the developer. PHP developers would have nothing to say about CF if the price was gone. Phewwww....that took a long minute. :-) No disrespect with comments. You have much respect with me Dave. On 9/29/06, Dave Watts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > 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:254812 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Talk/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.4
