Let's rename the product Visual Basic then :) As for JSP, I still prefer CF. JSP is messy to use and doesn't have enough built-in functionality. I also don't like the "XML-based" syntax.
----- Original Message ----- From: Matt Liotta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Monday, April 29, 2002 2:39 pm Subject: RE: I like CFMX > Well there's the rub. I don't want CF to have anything OO like. If I > wanted OO, I would use JSP. What they are done with CFCs is offer > bastardized OO. > > -Matt > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 1:37 PM > > To: CF-Talk > > Subject: Re: I like CFMX > > > > I don't think MM wants to have CF be like an OO language, thus the > lack > > of inheritance, interfaces, abstract classes. > > > > Mind you, it sure would be nice. Sometimes I could just kill > for some > > OO-like functionality in CF. > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Matt Liotta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Date: Monday, April 29, 2002 2:24 pm > > Subject: I like CFMX > > > > > After the recent thread I thought I would clarify my position on > > > CFMX. I > > > do indeed like it. In fact, all of my new development has been on > CFMX > > > beta 3 since it came out. Further, I was able to successfully port > all > > > of my CF 5 applications to CFMX with only minor changes. > > > > > > I disagree with the plan of moving CF over to J2EE, but we are > > > here now, > > > so that is a moot point. I do think/know that CF 5 out > > > performances CFMX > > > on a single server. However, the type of applications I build with > CF > > > will be more scalable with CFMX thanks to J2EE. If you see > this as a > > > contradiction, I'm sorry; there is a fundamental difference > between> > performance and scalability. > > > > > > I am glad we as CF developers finally have native access to XML > > > and Web > > > services. However, there are some interopablility issues with CFMX > > > basedWeb services you should be aware of. I can give details in > > > other mail if > > > you would like. I have been using a CFMX based Web service in > > > productionsince the release of beta 3. Since CFMX Web services are > > > based on Apache > > > Axis, I am sure the interoperability issues will be worked out > soon.> > > > > CFCs are both a good thing and bad for CF developers. While it is > > > greatthat you can now encapsulate your logic into a component, you > > > are left > > > feeling cheated. In Java, a developer has the ability to create > > > not only > > > classes, but also interfaces and abstract classes. We need the > ability > > > to create CFC interfaces and abstract CFCs. Further, CFC > > > inheritance is > > > broken IMHO, as CFCs don't inherit private methods and properties. > > > Additionally, I would have liked to see constructors and > > > destructors as > > > well as some sort of built-in way to serialize and deserialize > CFCs.> > Yes, I am aware that you can do pseduo constructors, but > you cannot > > > build a constructor takes parameters. > > > > > > Think that is enough for now. > > > > > > -Matt > > > > > > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for dependable ColdFusion Hosting. 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
