OK - I'm in...... > Nah, my argument *man i loose my points easily* was that, it seems funny > that we use CFMX to makeup our own language. In that whether you use an > XML packet or use <ms:MyCustomTag/> approach, you're effectively > inventing your own hybrid language to take care of something that in > many ways should already be done? and if not? then why not?
And what are you doing when you write functions and components other than to "take care of something" that the existing functionality in the tool doesnt have? And this doesn't only apply to CFMX but it applies to Flash and every other language out there. That CFMX provide the <CFIMPORT> mechanism so that it meshes seamslessly into the structure of the code is a bonus in my book. Just the same as ActionScript allows me to "invent" my own objects to do things that the designers of the library didn't think of. And what about open source plug-in based tools like Eclipse? Surely we want to be able to extend those and not rely solely on what the originator of the tool thought was a good idea at the time?? Our whole industry is gearing more and more to extensibility. Having said all that...... I have voiced my opinion many times that the pricing of FLEX may well be the death of it (just as the pricing of Spectra was the death of that product). I have had the conversation with some "macromedia" people and understand their logic in the pricing approach. I don't agree with it. Only time will tell. Regards, Gary Menzel --- You are currently subscribed to cfaussie as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aussie Macromedia Developers: http://lists.daemon.com.au/
