RE: "So apparently, the BD commercial product was never originally designed with CF compatibility as a 'prime directive', so to speak. Almost like 'middleware' or 'transitionware' to bridge platforms perhaps?"
No, that's not true, nor a fair characterization of the commercial editions of BD. Compatibility wth CF is a "prime directive" when developing BD features. However, web services are somewhat of a special case. There are several aspects we have to consider regarding web services "compatibility" in BD: 1) Compatibility with CF, which was itself a moving target with significant changes from CFMX 6.0 to 6.1 to 7.0. 2) Compatibility with the underlying platform, whether Java or .NET (that is, does a web service published by BD look like a "native" web service developed using the underlying platform?). 3) Compatibility across Java and .NET editions of BD. Juggling all of these aspects required making some compromises and difficult decisions. I believe you'll find that BD does a much better job at point (2) than CF does. That is, BD does a much better job than CF of publishing web services to non-BD and non-CF clients. The major compatibility issues that any BD or CF developer is going to have is when publishing web services that contain CFML-specific data types such as CFCs or queries to non-homogeneous clients (that is, when not BD-to-BD or CF-to-CF), which I believe is the scenario you ran into. On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 11:35 PM, Alan Holden<[email protected]> wrote: > > Thank you Andy! > > That back-story is helpful in understanding what otherwise just seemed > just plain weird - from the standpoint of a typical ColdFusion affectionado. > > So apparently, the BD commercial product was never originally designed > with CF compatibility as a "prime directive", so to speak. Almost like > "middleware" or "transitionware" to bridge platforms perhaps? > > Now that more and more economically-challenged former CF developers are > trying OpenBD as an entry or conversion point; compatibility issues are > more important there, and are hopefully being addressed in squeaky wheel > methodology? > > Alan K. Holden > > Andy Wu wrote: >> To answer your question Alan, it was implemented with compatibility >> between our own products BlueDragon and BlueDragon.NET as the priority >> over compatibility with CF. That was a business decision made by New >> Atlanta and since open sourcing BlueDragon, the implementation hasn't >> changed. > (snip) > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 !! -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
