response inline...
Dick Applebaum wrote:
>At 11:50 AM -0400 9/9/01, Jon Hall wrote:
>
>>I've thought about this a little, and I would love there to be a
>>scriptable COM object of the CF engine (imagine using CF for asp/wsh!
>>:-) ). Although with the architecture overhaul to a Java engine,
>>COM/ActiveX is probably out of the picture though. With so many
>>unanswered questions about CF6, it's really hard to speculate how the
>>this would work in the future. Perhaps a JavaBean? I bet it would be
>>expensive...especially if it is distributable.
>>
>
>Would it really need to be expensive? If I am not mistaken, you can
>get CF 5 free (download at the MM site) or for about $50 when you
>purchase Ben Forta's book.
>
>This is a 30-day trial version. From posts on this site, I understand that:
>
> after 30 days it reverts to a single user (single IP server) version.
>
> This still can be used, but to do so is a violation of the license agreement.
>
> Prior versions of CF had a similar setup, but the license agreement permitted
> continued use as a "Developer" version
>
>So, in effect a free version of full CF is out there... it is just
>not deployable as a production application server. But, the
>capability we seek does not require this deployment.
>
Good point, I think Macr would want to neuter some of the web specific
parts though for the desktop. Can't have anyone implementing their own
cfserver with the libraries they got on a cd demo...
>
>>Maybe Macromedia could introduce a new product that used the CF engine
>>to script applications kinda like Authorware (Visual CF Studio?). A RAD
>>framework based on CF. It would be cool, but how successfull would it
>>be? Maybe there is a simpler way to get CF on the desktop though. I'm
>>definately interested in what other people think.
>>
>
>What I would like to see is CF available on the desktop in several
>flavors... all would include the "pseudo database" capability I
>described in the original post, and the ability to interface a local
>database, if one were installed.
>
> 1. A runtime system (RTS) similar to a browser plugin or to a Java
>runtime environment.
> Any Desktop CF application would run, using this RTS.
>
>
> The RTS would be easily downloaded and installed. It could also
>be distributed by
> developers (along with their desktop CF apps) for a nominal fee.
>
or .Net's CLR..... We are able to develop .Net apps in Javascript,
VBScript, Perl, Python (same as wsh)... I'd love to see CF added to that
list. Why reinvent the wheel? .Net is an open spec...and preinstalled on
all future machines. A few proprietary extensions here and there and CF
becomes the preferred .net dev environment. This would be cake to
implement now that I think about it. All you need is a CF parser...
Using the JVM seems more plausible to me though. Just as easy to
implement and it's been around longer. Again all we need is a CF parser
on top of the JVM, and a way to control the interface (DOM...). Heh,
actually that is what Neo is going to be anyway. Just add a way to
embed a browser and we are in business.
>
> 2. A single-user desktop development system (DDS), probably
>including a lobotomized
> studio.
>
> The DDS would allow lay people to develop stand-alone apps that
>fill needs similar to
> VB. I would like to see this in the $40-$99 price range.
>
> 3. A full-blown single-user web development system (WDS), with full
>studio ala the
> 30-day trial version, at a reasonable fee (under $500)
>
>
>Each of these desktop offerings would include the capabilities of the
>less expensive offerings. So, If you buy 3, you get 1 and 2.
>
>
>The marketing assumptions here, are:
>
> there is a need for custom desktop programming/data manipulation
>beyond what can be
> accomplished by spreadsheet macros.
>
> VB currently addresses this need.
>
> CF is easier to write (and read) than VB because is is at a higher-level of
> implementation (less granular) and has many integrated functions
>(db, mail, cfhttp,
> etc).
>
> A browser is a familiar interface and is a sufficient user
>interface to desktop apps.
>
I think the real strength of the whole concept is using HTML/DOM for UI
design. Fully implemented (as in Mozilla, IE6 is close) it is much more
powerful and easier to write good looking UI's for applications in html,
than in VB, Delphi, or Java. We are not talking huge apps here anyway.
Looking at the cool dhtml stuff at http://www.dynamic-core.net/widgetx/
or Mozilla's integrated IRC chat all implemented in javascript, I'd bet
I'm not the only guy who wants to take my CF apps and bring them to the
desktop. As web developers we have a lot of experience in UI design
already anyway.
CF as a language is very narrowly focused on the web. After a few years
as developers master it they naturally want to move on to more powerful
languages. If developers have the ability to develop desktop
applications with CF, the language becomes much more attractive, since
there is room for growth. This is what Microsoft has done with
VB/VBScript and JScript/JScript.net....
<cf_toaster> anyone?
jon
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more
resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
