I assume you meant "takes 3 times longer to develop the same thing in J2EE", not CF, based on your previous statement. And I'd agree. As for the move of CF to a J2EE platform for Neo, now called CFMX, it will not change current CF development at all. The same code will run from CF5 to CFMX (except for the sort of typical compatibility challenges, deprecations, and planned obsolescence that come in most product upgrades). The fact that CFMX runs on J2EE is as important to developers as the fact that it ran on a C++ platform before--it was transparent.
Now, that's not to say that there won't be increased benefits from the underlying J2EE platform and integration points. I think that was the crux of Drew's question, but it's also why I asked for his clarification. It's one thing for CFMXers to benefit from the new platform (as all will) and consider some integration possibilities (as some will). It's quite another to expect them to leap from CF to pure J2EE. Some may be forced to by company politics, but they'll likely be disappointed by that very loss of productivity you mention. Then again, I'll be the first to argue that there are many design and development techniques and approaches inherent in the J2EE platform that the CF community would be wise to adopt, and I'm in fact working on that very issue. Drew and I have discussed some possibilities of working together in that regard. But there's a place for the two different platforms. I'm looking forward to each benefiting from the best of the other, as the two communities become more aware of each other. /charlie > -----Original Message----- > From: Mashuri Lambana [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2002 2:10 AM > To: JRun-Talk > Subject: Re: CF2J2EE > > > We normally use coldfusion during prototyping stage because it is a lot > faster to develop and to deploy (make customer try and make any revision > necessary) because it roughly takes 3 times longer to develop the > same thing > in coldfusion. > > If Neo jump to J2EE i hope it maintains the simplicity of coldfusion or at > least as simple as jrun without sacrificing the development time. If it > becomes as complex as J2EE looks like asp.net is a better alternative for > RAD > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "charles arehart" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "JRun-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2002 8:15 AM > Subject: RE: CF2J2EE > > > > Do you mean moving entirely from CF to J2EE? Or keeping some CF and > > integrating with J2EE apps and services? And do you mean moving entire > > applications or leaving existing ones and only building new ones? > > > > I'd think each of those pose different possibilities. (Of course, some > > aspects would be the same for all, but each poses its own set > of pros and > > cons, I'd think.) > > > > /charlie > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Drew Falkman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2002 6:33 PM > > > To: JRun-Talk > > > Subject: CF2J2EE > > > > > > > > > Hey all- > > > > > > I have a question to pose to you anyone who is interested in > responding: > > > > > > What would you tell a ColdFusion user if s/he were to ask what > advantages > > > they could utilize by moving to a J2EE environment? > > > > > > Thanks... > > > > > > Drew Falkman > > > Author, JRun Web Application Construction Kit > > > http://www.drewfalkman.com/books/0789726009/ > > > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for dependable ColdFusion Hosting. Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
