First, email can suck as a communication medium, particularly between two people who've never met face-to-face and don't know each other's personalities. I understand if you interpreted my comments as blatantly dismissive, but wasn't my intent or the spirit in which I wrote them.
I honestly believe that we take compatibility very seriously, and I honestly believe that we've done an extremely good job in BD 6.2. There were only a handful of priority 2 bugs that remained unfixed when we released BD 6.2. I just did a search of all open bugs in our bug tracking database (which as you know is available publicly online), and cannot find a single open bug authored by you (though it's possible that a bug you reported was entered by one of our engineers, so doesn't show you as the author). When I asked you to tell me about the incompatibilities you were experiencing, that was a sincere request for information. When I asked you to name third-party apps that don't run on BD, that was a sincere request for information. You and I agree that there are issues with CFPROCESSINGDIRECTIVE and the way whitespace compression in BD differs from CF. We're going to fix that. You and I agree that if a tag works differently in BD than in CF, then that's a bug in BD that needs to be fixed. Our commitment is to fix all the incompatibilities that we're aware of. You and I disagree about whether an enhancement in BD that isn't implemented in CF represents an incompatibility, but this disagreement is one we're simply not going to resolve, and seems relatively minor compared to the things we agree upon. Again, my apologies if I offended you--that wasn't my intent. If there are problems with BD that I don't know about, then I want to hear about them. That's all I was asking. Vince > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ben Rogers > Sent: Monday, May 16, 2005 2:39 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: [CFCDev] Null values (was CFC wish-list) > > > This is the only incompatibility you > > mention, so it's the only one I can respond to right now. > > Heh, my point exactly. My definition of an incompatibility > includes introducing tags in the cf namespace. > > > Compatibility is a very high priority for us. I don't > understand your > > statement or misperception that it's not. > > You're version of compatibility may be a high priority, but > you define compatibility rather loosely. > > > 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. > > >From the security perspective, ASP.NET's sandboxing > implementation does > >not > work very well for shared hosting environments. If you have a > web site that needs to talk to an Access database, then you > have to fully trust the web site because there's no native > .Net provider for Access. Once you fully trust a web site, > all bets are off. > > Windows Server 2003 AppPools do a fair job, but they are just > as quirky as CFMX 6.1 sandboxes. For instance, if you're > using ASP.Net web services, it's not enough to place the > AppPool user in the IIS_WPG group, you have to give the > IIS_WPG group full control over the Windows temp directory. > > Those are just a few examples of the issues we've run into > with sandboxing .Net apps. We maintain an internal wiki of > these types of issues. Suffice it to say that the page for > creating a ColdFusion MX 6.1 sandbox is a good deal shorter > than setting up an ASP.Net sandbox. > > > 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. > > I actually evaluated BlueDragon for use in our shared hosting > environment. I found several bugs and posted them to your bug > tracker. I've been on the BlueDragon list since it was > TagServlet. I've discussed these very issues on that list. > For you to be so blatantly dismissive of my opinion is pretty > shocking. > > I'll let it go at that. I don't think this conversation is > about compatibility any more. > > 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]
