VERY IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND THIS>>>>>> PLEASE KEEP READING
Last year at Devcon, we were practically promised that one of the benefits of the CF code being compiled into classes, was that you could distribute the class files and NOT your source code, and thus protect a commercial application. But we heard in May at NYCFUG from Ben Forta, that in testing CFMX they discovered this approach to be a serious problem. The class files that are generated are different to some extent depending on the environment they're compiled under. If you generate the class files on your machine, and then hand them off to a customer whose environment is not exactly the same as yours, the programs are going to behave a bit strangely, and no one is going to be able to put their finger on why. So... in the interest of MM being able to support this product and not have to run after wild goose chase type problems...... the way things work (at least for now), is that the original cfm source files have to be there on the server. That way CF can recompile them to the new environment, if necessary. But of course this means you don't get quite the power of distributing a commercial app by simply sending out a bunch of class files. Macromedia realizes this is not the way many of us want it, and they're thinking about it, working on it, etc. Hopefully one day they'll have a solution. In the meantime, I think they did the right thing by deciding not to hold up the entire release of CFMX, just because they couldn't get around this particular problem. hth, Tobe Goldfinger Co-Manager NYCFUG At 02:22 PM 6/24/02, you wrote: >Dont know alot about MX, but could he just give them the .class >file that CF creates from the templates? From my understanding, >MX runs off of these class files. They would be encrypted right? >Just shoot me if I am being stupid ok!!! > > > > >Douglas Brown >Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Stacy Young" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: Monday, June 24, 2002 11:03 AM >Subject: RE: protecting source code with MX > > > > The only way might be through the Jrun OEM program...Where >they sell > > licenses to include the Jrun app server as part of your >product...I'm > > assuming they may or possibly already have a licensing plan >for a CFMX > > approach. Not sure though... > > > > As far as stand alone compiled applications...don't believe >that's possible > > just yet...at least nothing straight forward that I know of.. > > > > Stace > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Josh Trefethen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Monday, June 24, 2002 1:42 PM > > To: CF-Talk > > Subject: protecting source code with MX > > > > Hello all! > > > > I have heard mention of a better way to protect source code >with MX (better > > than the encode capabilities of previous CF versions). > > > > Has anyone heard anything about this or have any experience >with this? > > > > I have an application which I sell to large corporations. The >software, > > along with CFServer is installed on the customer premises, and >I do not wish > > for the code to be decrypted and changed or copied. > > > > Since MX is Java Based, are there any new ways to compile or >encrypt our > > code so it is safe? > > > > Any other ideas would be great! > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Josh Trefethen > > Certified ColdFusion Developer > > President, exciteworks, Inc. > > http://exciteworks.com > > > > > > > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in ColdFusion and related topics. http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.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
