Hi Alan - > Me, i read that as saying Railo failed the most, as we all unofficially > accept ColdFusion is the standard.
I actually started with Adobe CF as the baseline, but when I stepped back and looked at the results there were too many inconsistancies to use OpenBD or CF to use as the baseline. If I were to say which engine between Railo and OpenBD was most compatible with Adobe, it would be Railo. In these tests, there are 4 compatibility tests where OpenBD fails on a pass from Adobe CF (1,80,81,82). This means that code on Adobe will not run on OpenBD. Railo only has 2 fails where both OpenBD and Adobe pass, and these 2 are not related to functionality (90.93). I totally agree that the tests are completely subjective. The real value I find in this is seeing where the implementations are different, and to a greater extent how the implementations are different fundamentally. Michael - I just saw that issue in JIRA and it is an interesting one. I'm going to add that to the tests soon. The package access value is something I want to understand better. It would be really cool if the relationship was access from all folders beneath the current cfc so I'm not forced to put all my cfms and cfcs in the same folder. I'll follow up on this in Railo JIRA. Jordan - Thanks! I'm glad you found this interesting. cheers, .brett On Apr 29, 5:47 am, Alan Williamson <[email protected]> wrote: > > In this case Adobe Coldfusion brakes the rules of the Adobe Coldfusion > > documentation and Railo does not, so what is the correct behaviour in > > this case? > > understood ... but is this: > > (a) a bug in Adobe's runtime > (b) a bug in Adobe's documentation > > As someone that has followed their documentation and implementation very > closely for near on 10 years now, i can tell you that you can pretty > much forget about what the documentation claims it should do, and only > observe what actually happens. > > The documentation, sadly, is only a ROUGH guideline :) > > I personally believe Adobe would have the hardest job adhering to any > official standard, because their engine is littered with lots of cases > that leave you scratching your head. > > Adobe aren't going to break these cases just to be compliant with open > source engines that are effectively taking revenue away from their product. > > So in principal I agree that a standards document would be a wonderful > thing to refer to. But in reality I don't believe the majority of CFML > developers really care, and will quite happily stick with their engine > of choice and whatever one they feel makes them more productive and > financially more secure. > > We as engine developers, are always listening to what you guys want, and > as you can probably see, we are quick to react and deliver what you > need. I believe the community, YOU, are the ultimate the standards > committee. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Open BlueDragon Public Mailing List http://groups.google.com/group/openbd?hl=en official site @ http://www.openbluedragon.org/ !! save a network - trim replies before posting !! -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
