Vernon, I really like it. But I think it will be the next version that I really love. I've been using it exclusively since the release, because I WANT to use it. The small demo Jeremy gave at a recent meeting was great. I want to use if for CFC's and web services and all the great new tools. I am chomping at the bit to be able to ONLY use this product.
BUT ... I was finally forced to go back to studio yesterday (after 8 days without using it), because DWMX was taking soooooo long to update and switch between views, it was killing me. I'd finally had enough. I would post this to the wish form, but it's a long rant, and I'd rather you read it here ... And hopefully someday you'll get all that flesh back! This whole RDS/FTP, define a site first, saving down a local copy, is a pain. I use RDS/FTP religiously, every day, but I also develop/test on a test server and deploy on a production server....and being able to jump around at will was a time saver. Yeah, you had to set up the RDS/FTP connections but not like we have to do in DWMX. But I'll get used to it, and find a work around, and maybe in the next version, you guys will make behave differently..... A couple other REALLY bad things. DWMX is a HUGE memory hog. Why does it have to use 50 MB RAM just to sit there? Anybody else get this? Also, the refresh when you Alt-Tab is a pain. I still can't find where to turn this off. There's a delay between the database tab and the code when you are dragging and dropping field and table names. Why? And be careful if you rename a file in the file list ... DW wants to know if it should update the links throughout your site...this would be an incredible feature if it didn't take away any url variables you had attached to the reference of the page inside the code of any of your templates. Oh, and I'm still having that issue with long file names, but I know my way around it, so I ignore the DW popup box. But Vernon, I like it!!! I really do! I think most of do ... It's just we are so used to Studio/Homesite, and we want what we want, so I may be behaving like a spoiled child when I rant ... But it's just my honest opinion. I'll still use DWMX, can't wait for the official FULL release ... Because I'm already spoiled by the file view, and the asset view, and the way I can have the databases open with the files. I just need to upgrade my RAM I guess .... Already at 256. :) ----------------------------------------------------- Erika L. Walker-Arnold, VP, RUWebby, LLC US 1.973.626.2412 UK 011.44.20.8406.4094 UK Mobile 011.44.77.6607.3695 ----------------------------------------------------- Macromedia ColdFusion Alliance Partner Macromedia ColdFusion 5.0 Certified Developer ----------------------------------------------------- Instant Messenger Access AIM: WebErika5 | Yahoo: WebErika | MSN: WebErika ----------------------------------------------------- >>| -----Original Message----- >>| From: Vernon Viehe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >>| Sent: 06 May 2002 22:55 >>| To: CF-Talk >>| Subject: RE: Macromedia Folks: What are you thinking? >>| >>| >>| Thanks for your comments. I hope you don't think I'm >>| arguing with you, just trying to understand and explain. =) >>| >>| I have to emphasize that Site Definitions are core to a lot >>| of Dreamweaver's functionality. It's not all about holding >>| your hand! A lot of the behaviors (which you may or may not >>| have used yet, but I'll bet that when you do, you'll be >>| hooked) depend on paths, which requires DW have knowledge >>| of your site structure. Other features need this knowledge >>| as well. Yes, it does do some hand-holding, but that's >>| because it's already there - hand-holding is not it's >>| reason for existance! >>| >>| As far as the multiple environments (local, testing, >>| sandbox, production), simply having multiple definitions is >>| one easy way to handle that. (i.e. SiteDef1: local > >>| testing SiteDef2 Local > Production or testing > production) >>| >>| And you don't have to use checkin-checkout. You can use >>| DWMX in conjunction with SourceSafe, it's in the remote >>| info area of the site definition. basically, instead of >>| sending it to the server, you "put" it to SourceSafe (database). >>| >>| Oh, and I forgot to mention, one of the other messages said >>| something about "syncing" those "extra" dw files. You can >>| "cloak" anything you don't want synced (right-click the >>| file/dir in the site window, choose cloaking...), and you >>| can choose not to upload design notes (but those are really >>| handy when you're working with a group of folks on the same >>| project, so it's good to include them if you do share the >>| work on the site with others). >>| >>| I've been around MM since the early days of MM. I can tell >>| you it was always developed to be a hand-coder's tool. It's >>| just that since it's the tool of choice for so many >>| professionals, everyone wants to use it. But that was never >>| the goal. >>| >>| I hope you guys really give it a chance. I love it, and I >>| think most of you will too! >>| >>| I don't know what else to say about RDS/FTP in the >>| open/save dialog. It's not there, I know you want it. I >>| can't make it appear magically, but I can be sure to tell >>| folks how much of my flesh it's cost me because it's not in >>| there. OUCH! =) >>| >>| -Vern >>| >>| > -----Original Message----- >>| > From: Shawn Grover [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >>| > Sent: Monday, May 06, 2002 2:33 PM >>| > To: CF-Talk >>| > Subject: RE: Macromedia Folks: What are you thinking? >>| > >>| > >>| > Thanks for monitoring this Vernon. And my comments below are not >>| > meant to be personal. >>| > >>| > However, I'm one who rarely uses FTP or RDS vis CFStudio >>| > (actually, I have yet to get RDS working right - one day, when it >>| > becomes important). That >>| > said though, I am a developer who knows how to manage my >>| > files and develop >>| > my own architectures as needed. The Site implementation of >>| > DWMX forces me >>| > to create a site, hence creating a Site file, hence imposing >>| > file management >>| > on me. If the features of UltraDev 4 are still present in that my >>| > connection strings and such are stored in another file >>| > somewhere, then I >>| > also have an architecture decision imposed on me. I don't >>| > need that level >>| > of hand holding. >>| > >>| > I want to be able to work with my files, without having extra >>| > files created "for" me. I want the simplicity that DW promises >>| > for some of the features, >>| > without having to create an architecture I don't want, or is >>| > not relavent to >>| > my application. And this still has nothing to do with FTP/RDS. >>| > >>| > As for checking in/out of files - I uss VSS for that, why would I >>| > want to implement another tool? >>| > >>| > As for synchronization, Sites impose only two locations on you - >>| > local copy, and remote copy. However in a good development >>| environment, there are >>| > likely to be 3 or more locations. Currently we have a >>| > development server, >>| > then our QA server, then our pre-production server, and >>| finally our >>| > production server - never mind our sandbox server (where >>| > development which >>| > will impact on other users happens so as to minimize >>| > inconvienience), and >>| > then a completly unrelated testing server for proof of >>| > concept work. The >>| > site "feature" doesn't allow for any of this in an easy >>| > manner - unless I >>| > want to create a "site" for each of these locations. >>| > >>| > On the plus side, I think the site feature is a decent option for >>| > lesser experienced developers (who will quickly become >>| frustrated with the >>| > limitations imposed on them), or designers (who do not need >>| > to deal with >>| > these issues). It DOES have it's place. Just make it an >>| > option - even a >>| > default option, but give me some way to turn it off. >>| > >>| > CF Studio is a fantastic tool with features galore. However, you >>| > don't need these features to use it effectively. We treat it as a >>| > basic text editor, >>| > with some use of code snippets. Otherwise, we manage our >>| > files ourselves, >>| > and synchronize the files between the various locations >>| > ourselves - much >>| > more control this way, and easier to fix the "oops" issues. >>| > We don't use >>| > the Project option, because that is inherent in our directory >>| > structures and >>| > revision control software. And if Sites are equivalent to >>| > Projects in this >>| > case, then why would I use it or need it? >>| > >>| > My appologies for the rant. But it seems that there is >>| some basic >>| > understanding of how DEVELOPERS/CODERS work missing from >>| some parts of >>| > MM. I'm grateful to see you and the other MM employees who >>| > frequent this list take interest in our concerns - gives me hope >>| > for the future of CF, and the >>| > development tools. >>| > >>| > >>| > Shawn Grover >>| > >>| > -----Original Message----- >>| > From: Vernon Viehe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >>| > Sent: Monday, May 06, 2002 3:03 PM >>| > To: CF-Talk >>| > Subject: RE: Macromedia Folks: What are you thinking? >>| > >>| > >>| > I wanted to talk to some of our most seasoned CF'ers around here >>| > before I got back with you on this. We stepped through what was >>| > necessary to set up >>| > the RDS connection and edit files both in CF Studio and DWMX, >>| > and what the >>| > fundemental differences are. We think we've boiled it down to >>| > a few relevant >>| > differences. >>| > >>| > 1.) You must declare a local root folder: >>| > Keep in mind, you don't have to d/l the whole site to this folder. >>| > In fact, you can view files in the "remote" view so that you're >>| > looking at them live >>| > on the server. When you double-click the file, it will >>| appear to open >>| > directly in DW (what actually happens is that DW d/l's the >>| > file to the local >>| > folder you declared in the definition, if you chose "Edit >>| > files directly on >>| > the testing server" in the site wizard, or chose >>| > "Automatically upload files >>| > on save" in the regular definition box, DW will upload the >>| > file as soon as >>| > you hit Save.) This is in effect the same as editing live on >>| > the server, >>| > with the exception that you will have a local copy of >>| > whichever file you >>| > edited, saved in a corresponding location in the local folder. >>| > >>| > All in all, this doesn't seem to present any barriers to one's >>| > workflow, it's just a different methodology whose results are >>| > pretty much the same in >>| > both programs. >>| > >>| > 2. There is no option to use FTP/RDS in the save-as >>| dialog box: This >>| > means that to save & upload to another site/location >>| other than the >>| > site currently chosen, you have to first save it to the >>| corresponding >>| > location in the local root folder of that site, then switch >>| > to that site's >>| > definition in the files window to "put" the file. This can >>| > require a few >>| > extra steps which I can see being a pain if you need to save >>| > the same file >>| > to several sites often. >>| > >>| > Otherwise, if it's in the current site, then the option to >>| > Automatically upload on save pretty much takes care of this. >>| > >>| > If the FTP & RDS Explorer in the save as dialog is important to >>| > you, please let us know by using the Feature Request and Bug >>| > Report form at: >>| > http://www.macromedia.com/support/email/wishform?6213=6 >>| > >>| > I hope this helps! >>| > >>| > Vernon Viehe >>| > Community Manager >>| > Macromedia, Inc. >>| > Online diary: http://vvmx.blogspot.com/ >>| > >>| > >>| ______________________________________________________________________ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.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
