On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 9:14 AM, Wil Genovese <[email protected]> wrote: > > My thoughts - > > quote from Adam: > "It is today, as it was before. Innovation and progress in CFML is driven > exclusively by the ColdFusion community. Adobe is merely a vessel that pours > those ideas into ColdFusion and spread CFML advancements throughout the > world. As a community, we never needed the OpenCFML board to guide or > document feedback." > > I would alter that to be 'Adobe is the CURRENT vessel' since from the > beginning CFML innovation was always driven by the community going back to > the days of Allaire and the Team Allaire members.
ColdFusion is a trademark owned by Adobe. CFML is something that is shared across a number of engines. I appreciate what Adobe has done so far for CFML. I think it is a bit disingenuous to say that Adobe is merely a vessel to put those ideas into effect. It is a, rather large, commercial entity and it first and foremost has it's own best interests at heart (by design, that's how companies work). To the extent that it aligns with developer interests, that is a great thing. > If the OpenBD team claims it is not organized enough to submit ideas then > they are most likely not organized enough to release a new version of OpenBD > and certainly not organized enough to be innovative. This is unfortunate > since the commercial version of BlueDragon used to be innovative. > I have no experience with OpenBD, so I can't really comment. > If Railo Team claims they want to wait and see what tags flush out in their > flavor of CFML then two things are true, 1: they are implementing language > enhancements that are not community driven and 2: Railo would rather take a > wait and see role instead or a lead role in the OpenCFML board. I do not know if you've had any experience with the Railo project team. I can honestly say that I have never seen a more responsive project. Community suggestions are made on the mailing list, discussed, dropped in JIRA and implemented all the time. As in weekly. The lead developer on the project has often times come to the mailing list and asked for feedback on the best way to implement an idea they'd been tossing around. They have pushed the language forward in the past and continue to do so, with much greater transparency and feedback than any other project I've ever seen. Might they wait on decisions from Adobe about implementation of certain items? That seems prudent to me as it is in the best interests of all CFML programmers to have a consistent language syntax and behavior, certainly for the core language at the least. Like I said, I don't know the politics behind the whole thing. I can't say I really understand Adam's reasons from reading his blog post. My concern, however, isn't the behind the scenes politics, it is my disappointment that an effort to standardize the core language has been tossed by the wayside. I don't really care how it gets done but I think it is in the best interests of developers to be able to write an app with knowledge that you can drop it into a host running Adobe ColdFusion, Railo or OpenBD and be off and running. Ah well. Judah ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology-Michael-Dinowitz/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/message.cfm/messageid:335636 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/unsubscribe.cfm
