Hi Ben, I understand the issue with CFPROCESSINGDIRECTIVE and whitespace compression, and yes, we plan to revisit this in a future BD release (there wasn't enough time to fully address this in BD 6.2, though we did do some things to relieve many--most?--of the issues; at least, we've gotten fewer complaints about this in BD 6.2). This is the only incompatibility you mention, so it's the only one I can respond to right now. Again, if there are other incompatibilities that are causing you problems please let me know about them. If you're basing your opinions of compatibility on BD 6.1 then you really should try BD 6.2.
Compatibility is a very high priority for us. I don't understand your statement or misperception that it's not. Regarding sandbox security: no, that's not something we support in the BD Java/J2EE editions. However, the "sandbox security" that's inherent in ASP.NET and supported by BD.NET is far superior to anything offered by CFMX. Every ASP.NET web application (and BD.NET web application) is isolated in memory with a separate Application scope (even for applications with the same CFAPPLICATION name), separate BlueDragon admin consoles, etc. Come hear my talk at CFUNITED if you want to learn more. We expect to make a much stronger push into the hosting market with BD.NET than we have with the BD Java/J2EE editions. As for BD enhancements, you and I just view things differently. I don't see how introducing a CFIMAP or CFIMAGE tag "breaks compatibility with ColdFusion" any more than calling them BDIMAP or BDIMAGE would; and I never will understand your perspective. When we introduce the CFC enhancements we're discussing, they'll be done is a way that is "backwards compatible" with both ColdFusion and earlier versions of BlueDragon. That is, code that does not use these enhancements will continue to work as expected. Obviously, code that does use these enhancements will only work on BlueDragon. I'm not sure which third-party apps you're referring to. BlogCFC runs on BD 6.2 without change, as does Mach II, FuseTalk, and many others. The only reason I know that different versions would be needed is for vendors (such as FuseTalk) who chose to encrypt their templates, because the encryption techniques are different across CF and BD--but the original CFML source code is the same. If there's a third-party app you know of that doesn't run on BD, please let me know. We're not "splintering the ColdFusion development sphere" any more than MM is when they release a new version of ColdFusion that introduces new tags and obsoletes others. That is, when you upgrade from CF5 to CFMX, for example, you expect to get new features, and expect others to be no longer supported. Similarly, when a customer "upgrades" from CFMX to BlueDragon, they expect to get new features, and expect others to be longer supported. Obviously, they're moving to BD because it does something that CFMX doesn't, otherwise they'd just stick with CFMX. If BD was just a perfect clone of CF, there would be no point to it. It's the enhancements that people want--those enhancements are the very reason for BD's existence. Vince > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ben Rogers > Sent: Monday, May 16, 2005 9:10 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: [CFCDev] Null values (was CFC wish-list) > > Vince, > > > I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. Are you > saying there are > > existing incompatibilities in BD 6.2 that you'd like to see fixed > > before we add these enhancements? > > There are existing incompatibilities. I would like to see > them resolved, but I don't think that's going to happen: many > of these incompatibilities are by design. > > For instance, BlueDragon introduces tags in the "cf" > namespace instead of providing a separate "bd" namespace or > importable tag lib. The functionality of other tags has been > changed: the suppresswhitespace attribute of the > cfprocessingdirective tag transcends page scope and > aggressively strips white space from code. > > And there are some features which New Atlanta has just > ignored. Sandbox security, though imperfect, is pretty much a > necessity for shared hosting environments. > > > Or, are you saying we shouldn't add these enhancements because they > > themselves are incompatibilities with CFMX? > > I'm saying that I would have preferred if New Atlanta had > added these enhancements in a way that did not break > compatibility with ColdFusion. For instance, you could have > placed tags like cfimage and cfimap in a tag lib that we > could then import into a neutral namespace. > > For a fee, you could have then licensed the tag lib to third > party developers for redistribution. That way, they could > embed the tag lib in their applications and more easily > distribute applications compatible with both BlueDragon and > ColdFusion. > > Right now, it seems very few third party apps support > BlueDragon. If they do, there's almost always a separate code > base. Subtle changes like that to cfprocessingdirective means > there's a good deal of debugging and head scratching involved > in supporting BlueDragon if you're coming from ColdFusion. > > > If the former, then I'd like to know what existing issues you have > > with BD > > 6.2 so that we can fix them. > > I've mentioned much of this already on the BlueDragon mailing > list. I don't think you have any intention of fixing it > because you don't see it as a problem. > > > If the latter, then I'll respectfully > > disagree; we plan to move forward with these enhancements > regardless > > of what CFMX does. > > That's your prerogative. I don't see how a business model > based on splintering the ColdFusion development sphere works, > but you're free to try. > However, we can't switch our hosting customers to BlueDragon > because of incompatibilities in existing tags and functionality. > > Just to be clear, I really like some of the features New > Atlanta has added. > Cfimage, cfimap, the "website" attribute of the cfsearch tag, > etc. Those are all great enhancements. I've used BlueDragon > on my own box to accomplish a few things that would have been > difficult or required third party custom tags. > > I just wish compatibility was a high priority for BlueDragon. > > Ben Rogers > http://www.c4.net > v.508.240.0051 > f.508.240.0057 > ---------------------------------------------------------- You are subscribed to cfcdev. To unsubscribe, send an email to [email protected] with the words 'unsubscribe cfcdev' as the subject of the email. CFCDev is run by CFCZone (www.cfczone.org) and supported by CFXHosting (www.cfxhosting.com). CFCDev is supported by New Atlanta, makers of BlueDragon http://www.newatlanta.com/products/bluedragon/index.cfm An archive of the CFCDev list is available at www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
