> 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)
No, probably not. However, learning CF and Java seems to be about the same amount of work as learning .NET. In addition, most CF programmers can get by without the complexity of either Java or .NET. > 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. The world of product demos is a lot like Quake Done Quick (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quake_done_Quick). You can do a hell of a lot in two hours, with enough prior preparation. > 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. Not to be indelicate, but that would be work, and for that I would require payment. This is exactly why companies like Adobe and Microsoft have product evangelists, who pretty much do that sort of thing for a living. > 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. No, it probably wouldn't be done with the snap of a finger, I agree. But it wouldn't be that hard, either, and once you'd done it you wouldn't need to rethink it the next time you were faced with the same problem. For example, here at Fig Leaf we've used the same authentication/authorization functionality in many custom applications, in a format that's modular enough to allow very easy reuse within other applications. And, if you're talking about the roles-based authentication functionality described here: http://www.sitepoint.com/article/asp-net-2-security then it's worth pointing out that if you want to do something slightly out of the ordinary, such as authentication against something other than a database or AD, you will be in customization-land once again. But the biggest potential problem here, is the generic problem of code generation. It's great, as long as you want to do exactly what the code generator lets you do. Once you want to do something else, you face an uphill battle against all the stuff that's done automatically for you. This has been somewhat of an issue in my own relatively limited ASP.NET development. > 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. You can't use the onRequest event with web services or Flash Remoting. However, you can use onRequestStart to perform authentication tests, and you can use any authentication stuff you want, including CFLOGIN, to manage authentication and authorization to your web services just like you would with your regular pages, if you want. So, no extra work needed there. > 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). Well, this is one of those things that tends to be easier said than done. For example, in my experience, the view of a mobile application is so significantly different than that of a normal web or desktop application that you have to do a lot of work to build a new view, and may even need to reconsider how you're doing things beyond the view. > 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. If you wanted to be able to deploy on the widest variety of available phones and devices, you wouldn't choose .NET CF. It's as simple as that. No matter what you chose, you'd have a lot of work to get your solution to work on multiple devices, and I prefer the capabilities of Windows Mobile devices to pretty much everything else, but the market share just isn't there yet. > Enterprise can be argued, MS or not. The main part I stress > when I say enterprise is a complete end to end solution. Microsoft is the best in providing an end-to-end solution. Unfortunately, every part involves Windows, which is not a viable choice for most enterprises. They already have lots of infrastructure in place, and ripping it out and replacing it with Windows is simply not an option. Interoperability is the key to the enterprise, and Java provides that in spades, simply because it's been around for a while. > 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). The fact that CF developers generally don't know Java is a pretty good indicator that, for most business needs, they don't have to. But if you had to, I really think that learning Java would be no more difficult than learning C#. Learning CF itself is pretty trivial, actually - the difficult part is to learn to build web applications in general. > 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. Absolutely. Yet still, your deployment options would go far beyond various flavors of Windows. > 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. I don't think that most developers care one way or the other about the price of the product, since they don't buy it. I don't think that the members of this list are typical CF developers, generally. I think that the list has a higher percentage of freelancers and entrepreneurs, and those people are a lot more sensitive to price obviously. But CF is a tiny drop in the bucket compared to other enterprise products like Oracle and Websphere, so there isn't a lot of price pressure from those enterprises that use it. > Phewwww....that took a long minute. :-) No disrespect with > comments. You have much respect with me Dave. No disrespect was assumed, and I likewise respect you as well. And, believe it or not, I also like .NET - I really think it's good stuff. I just don't think it'll negatively affect CF too much in the short term, and in the long term, as Mr. Keynes once said, we are all dead. 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:254837 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Talk/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.4
