I was going to say pretty much what Doug said about CF 9. Almost verbatim. Until CF 9 ships ORM in CF 9 is vaporware and as Doug said who knows how good it will be if CF 9 does ship with ORM?
I love Reactor. I use it in all my applications. I think a lite version is an excellent idea. I also really like Nathan's idea of a modular approach. I think one of the critical missing pieces is fleshed out documentation. It would be really great to have the level of documentation that Transfer has. I would also like to be able to integrate Reactor with Flex. Don't know how feasible that would be but it sure would be nice. I really do think having two open source ORMs are good for the CF community. Even if CF 9 ships with ORM and it is robust and well implemented I think there will be a place for both Reactor and Transfer. Ray On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 8:25 PM, Doug Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Nathan, > > I didn't see anything jerky in what you said. I'm glad you shared your two > cents. I'd love to get more feedback from more people.... but frankly the > silence on the list may speak volumes. > > And who knows if ORM will actually even be in CF 9? And, who knows if the > hypothetical ORM in CF 9 will be any good? Seriously. Adobe has a very, > very, bad habit of doing things about 80% of the way. The other 20% are > just left for us to pull our hair out about. Think flash forms, ajax > features, pdf features. I mean much of anything above the basics in those > feature sets makes me want to scream. Oh, and let's not forget about the > thousands of existing applications that use transfer or reactor. > > Anyhow, having reactor not be languishing is better for us all, I believe. > I just can't do it on my own. > > Doug Hughes, President > Alagad Inc. > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 888 Alagad4 (x300) > Office: 919-550-0755 > Fax: 888-248-7836 > > > On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 7:01 PM, Nathan Strutz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Well I've been thinking about it for a few hours now since you dropped >> this, and I'm sure we've all got some thoughts, so I'll just voice what >> nobody wants to hear. Voice of opposition or whatever. No caffeine makes me >> fussy. >> >> I guess the big question is: will CF9 make custom ORMs obsolete? I know >> Mark Mandel has been fighting this battle, too, arguing the legacy server >> battle and the fact that our ORMs are here now, whereas Adobe's is not out >> yet. >> >> For Mark Drew taking over the project, yes, Doug, you've done an amazing >> job but you're too busy and maybe we need a new leader if this project is >> going to go anywhere. You know I'm all for anything that pushes Reactor >> forward. >> >> Another thing we don't want to hear: I would rather Mark spend all his >> time making CFEclipse better. Yeah that's a selfish statement, sorry. But >> hey, if Mark Drew says he can do it, I believe it, that guy is Superman x3. >> >> Another quesiton nobody wants to ask: Is CF9's IDE going to kill >> CFEclipse? Probably not if it costs money. Probably if it's free. >> >> The idea of Reactor "lite" is fantastic. What if a bunch of the features >> were separate downloads - database introspection (Reactor Base), various >> object generation (Reactor ORM), a custom version of Validat (Reactor >> Validat, or something), OO Queries (Reactor Query Code) and you can build >> your own with what feature you want (Have you seen jQuery UI download >> builder?). How about a scaffold form generator add-on. >> >> Why doesn't Reactor generate its own config file when I know it can read >> my database? >> >> As nice as ColdSpring is, I don't know if that's the answer. If you're >> looking for ways to switch out core components, just make a config file or a >> section in the reactor.xml file and implement a simple abstract factory. I >> could, however, see reactor creating a coldspring config xml file for >> ColdSpring 1.2's new <include ... /> tag, where Reactor could manage that >> file and we could just include it along with our other beans. That would be >> a big win. >> >> Like you said, we've all got ideas. >> >> I'll shut up now, I know I've been kind of a jerk and all on this subject. >> Anyways, Mark would be great. I don't really know who else is using Reactor >> that has the chops, experience and desire to run the show. >> >> nathan strutz >> [Blog and Family @ http://www.dopefly.com/] >> [AZCFUG Manager @ http://www.azcfug.org/] >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 8:45 AM, Doug Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> >>> Hi everyone, >>> >>> It may or may not be obvious that Reactor has been, shall we say, idle >>> under my oversight. Honestly, my focus is on my business and things that >>> directly impact it. Reactor is only in my periphery these days and, as a >>> result, support and momentum behind the project has faltered. >>> >>> The CF community focus really has been on Transfer and its features. >>> And, though Transfer is a terrific product and we have used it on some >>> projects here at Alagad, it's not the end game. >>> >>> Beyond that, there's a lot that remains that can be done with Reactor. >>> There are ideas I've had for a lite version, or a ColdSpring based >>> architecture that would allow for customizations of the core, and so much >>> more. And I know many of you have ideas. Not to mention issues that need >>> to be resolved. >>> >>> My realization is that I personally don't have the time or inclination to >>> get into Reactor code any more. And so, for a while, I've been looking for >>> someone to take over as a project manager for Reactor. I've asked Mark Drew >>> a few times if he'd be willing to chip in and today he hesitantly agreed. >>> However, we both want to talk to the community of Reactor users before >>> making the official decision. Do you think you or someone else might be a >>> better (or simply different) choice? If so, please speak up. >>> >>> If Mark does take over the project then he'll presumably be working with >>> you, the community of Reactor users, to come up with a plan for the future >>> of the project. I also anticipate that the development of the project will >>> become much more open and inclusive than it has been in the past. (Maybe >>> some of the mess in OO queries can be cleaned up?) >>> >>> Anyhow, I just wanted to open this up for discussion. Let's hear what >>> you have to say. >>> >>> Doug Hughes, President >>> Alagad Inc. >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> 888 Alagad4 (x300) >>> Office: 919-550-0755 >>> Fax: 888-248-7836 >>> >>> -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- >>> -- -- -- >>> Reactor for ColdFusion Mailing List >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> Archives at: http://www.mail-archive.com/reactor%40doughughes.net/ >>> -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- >>> -- -- -- >> >> >> >> -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- >> -- -- >> Reactor for ColdFusion Mailing List >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Archives at: http://www.mail-archive.com/reactor%40doughughes.net/ >> -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- >> -- -- >> > > > -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- > -- -- > Reactor for ColdFusion Mailing List > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Archives at: http://www.mail-archive.com/reactor%40doughughes.net/ > -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- > -- -- > -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Reactor for ColdFusion Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Archives at: http://www.mail-archive.com/reactor%40doughughes.net/ -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
