>From: Dave Watts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> See, that's exactly what i'm talking about. If another >> company adds a feature *before* Adobe does, then how is it >> not the responsibility of Adobe to maintain compatibility >> when they themselves add the same feature? Should the other >> company in question break backwards compatibility with their >> own code just to match Adobe's implementation? Once again we >> see the position that only Adobe is allowed to innovate in >> this area. > >Adobe is not selling a CFML engine. Adobe is selling ColdFusion. Adobe >hasn't standardized CFML, and has no responsibility to any other vendor >selling CFML engines. You can argue that those other vendors likewise have >no responsibility to Adobe, and I'd agree, but if you build a product that >provides compatibility with someone else's product as its chief feature, >the >onus is on you to provide that compatibility.
I've always thought BD would have been better served by using the "cfx_" extension for additions they made to the language. That would at least give developers who want to use BD as their core language the ability to write custom tags that could be implemented in other versions of CF. It would seem to address a lot of issues of compatibility... -Dan ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;160198600;22374440;w Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Talk/message.cfm/messageid:301050 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Talk/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.4
