Adam, The API has changed a number of times. Usually, all for the better. You have to remember that Reactor has never made a 1.0 release, and with each new beta release, Doug noted the differences in API changes, and put out warnings that the API had changed dramatically.
It's sad but true that Reactor has seen better progress in the past, as opposed to now where it's a very slow moving project. It's like a feature complete proof-of-concept, maybe. Everybody got busy, Doug started his own company. Reactor had a couple fundamental performance problems and then it just sort of stagnated. Reactor lacked some polish, some documentation and a pretty web site, but most of all, love and attention from the developers. Of course, it's written in CF. We are all potential developers, though the problems with the framework now are really for the most serious of programmers, people who know how to profile an application, sleep & breath OO principals and work with XSLT. I'm really happy to see Doug actually keeps committing changes. Almost surprised. As much as I love Reactor's implementation of the active record pattern, as well as anything Doug puts his touch-typing on, I can't currently recommend it for any new projects. I can only say to go with Transfer or Illudium pu-36. What does Reactor need to get back on track? 1) Regular updates from Doug on his blog. Make us believe it's going somewhere. 2) A pretty web site. It can be 1 page. It needs a description and links to d/l, trac and docs. 3) Performance issues fixed. 4) Perception of performance issues cleaned up (see #1). Now, like I said, Doug is busy. Everybody's busy. I'm not exactly throwing my hand up, I'm just saying, this stuff has to happen or Reactor will die. -- nathan strutz http://www.dopefly.com/ On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 10:00 AM, Adam Cameron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Groan. > > Everyone who's been helping me on this should stop immediately, because I > think we've all been wasting our time. > > I have some weirdo (old?) install of Reactor installed that I got from > here: > http://www.reactorframework.org/, specifically the link: > http://www.doughughes.net/includes/reactor/reactor.zip. > > (I got to there from the Model-Glue docs, which is the direction I > approached this from: > http://docs.model-glue.com/Installing_Model-Glue/Installing_Model-Glue.htm > ) > > This zip is 1897kB > > I've just D/Led the zip from the Reactor product page ( > http://www.alagad.com/go/products-and-projects), and that's a rather > different 1358kB. > > I did a diff on each version's reactorFactory.cfc, and there's more > differences than similarities. > > I started down this angle because having grabbed the latest revision from > SVN, suddenly my code was erroring with "The OBJECTALIAS parameter to the > createGateway function is required but was not passed in", which I found > predictable once I checked the code because the previous version of > reactorFactory.cfc (ie: the one I had been using to date) I had been using > was expecting objectName rather than objectAlias. > > So. > > I guess I am experiencing issues with a well out-of-date version of the > Reactor codebase, so I don't know if there's much point pursuing this > problem at all until I reimplement my code with the current version. At > which point in time I doubt I'll be having the problem anyhow! > > Sorry for wasting everyone's (and, not least of all: my own [scowl]) time > on this one. > > A parting question: > How often ought I expect the API for Reactor to change so fundamentally > that the core CFC changes its argument names? I dunno the timeframe > difference between the two versions I'm looking at here, but I would kind of > expect the API to be locked down. > > Oh, a second parting question: > Is there anywhere in the codebase that identifies the current release > version of the software, or I should I just stick to the SVN revisions if I > need to cite "I'm using version xxx" when raising a problem? I had a - > brief - sniff around for a version.xml or something like that, but didn't > spot it. I reckon had I found such a thing I would have mentioned it in my > original post, and we could have nipped this @ the bud rather quickly with a > "oh, you probably ought to update...". > > Oh well. We live and learn. I'm going for a beer. > > Cheers all. > > -- > Adam > > > -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- > -- -- > 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/ -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
