RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
I offered a solution doing just that in an article in the Feb 2002 CFDJ called Unlocking Restricted Use of CFFILE, CFCONTENT, and More, available at http://www.sys-con.com/coldfusion/article.cfm?id=404. It addresses how to solve this problem in CF 5. Before anyone sees that title and think I'm suggesting how to circumvent security, please read the article. I'm showing how (as is suggested in the notes below) one could implement a way to get around simple CFFILE security in a controlled way in conjunction with the CF Admin. It's just a very underrated CF5 feature (the unsecured tags directory) that I point out. And for the later notes pointing up Sandbox Security and the potential to solve this problem that way, I'll add as well that I wrote a couple of articles on the subject late last year, at: ColdFusion Security, Part One: Understanding Sandbox/Resource Security http://www.macromedia.com/desdev/security/articles/sandbox_01.html ColdFusion Security, Part Two: Sandbox/Resource Basics http://www.macromedia.com/desdev/security/articles/sandbox_02.html /charlie -Original Message- From: Thomas Chiverton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2003 11:20 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? On Thursday 04 Sep 2003 15:32 pm, Matt Liotta wrote: Right. But if your hosting provider has wiped out cffile ... ? Then I am sure they won't let you install a CFX that does the same thing. I don't think they'd have any choice. Of course, what they should do, is provide a cf_file which is a wrapper round cffile, but appends your hosted directory path to all the path/filename arguments or something. -- Tom C Land of the free, home of the brave... you have to be brave to live there and enjoy the freedoms ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com
RE: shared hosting security (was Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?)
Matt, Is it possible the hosting company can remove that object from the File class? Dan === Previous Message Below === -Original Message- From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 3:56 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: shared hosting security (was Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?) Read the rest of the thread leading up to it. If you still can't understand why I was referring to security, then I will submit out of shear frustration. -Matt ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm
Re: shared hosting security (was Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?)
No -Matt On Friday, September 5, 2003, at 06:24 AM, Dan O'Keefe wrote: Matt, Is it possible the hosting company can remove that object from the File class? Dan === Previous Message Below === -Original Message- From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 3:56 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: shared hosting security (was Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?) Read the rest of the thread leading up to it. If you still can't understand why I was referring to security, then I will submit out of shear frustration. -Matt ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm
Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
On Wednesday 03 Sep 2003 19:39 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: some of us dont know what that is matt. a lot of us dont know java maybe dont have time to learn it. a lot of us need cffile. gawd knows i do:) I'm sure somewhere there must be a cf_file that works like cffile, but uses Java's i/o layer inside. -- Tom C Land of the free, home of the brave... you have to be brave to live there and enjoy the freedoms ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm
Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
I'm sure somewhere there must be a cf_file that works like cffile, but uses Java's i/o layer inside. CFMX compiles CFML into Java, so cffile in fact just uses java.io.File. Matt Liotta President CEO Montara Software, Inc. http://www.MontaraSoftware.com (888) 408-0900 x901 ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in ColdFusion and related topics. http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.cfm
Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
On Thursday 04 Sep 2003 14:53 pm, Matt Liotta wrote: I'm sure somewhere there must be a cf_file that works like cffile, but uses Java's i/o layer inside. CFMX compiles CFML into Java, so cffile in fact just uses java.io.File. Right. But if your hosting provider has wiped out cffile ... ? -- Tom Chiverton (sorry 'bout sig.) Advanced ColdFusion Programmer Tel: +44(0)1749 834997 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] BlueFinger Limited Underwood Business Park Wookey Hole Road, WELLS. BA5 1AF Tel: +44 (0)1749 834900 Fax: +44 (0)1749 834901 web: www.bluefinger.com Company Reg No: 4209395 Registered Office: 2 Temple Back East, Temple Quay, BRISTOL. BS1 6EG. *** This E-mail contains confidential information for the addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify us immediately. You should not use, disclose, distribute or copy this communication if received in error. No binding contract will result from this e-mail until such time as a written document is signed on behalf of the company. BlueFinger Limited cannot accept responsibility for the completeness or accuracy of this message as it has been transmitted over public networks.*** ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for dependable ColdFusion Hosting. http://www.cfhosting.com
Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
Right. But if your hosting provider has wiped out cffile ... ? Then I am sure they won't let you install a CFX that does the same thing. Matt Liotta President CEO Montara Software, Inc. http://www.MontaraSoftware.com (888) 408-0900 x901 ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com
Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
On Thursday 04 Sep 2003 15:32 pm, Matt Liotta wrote: Right. But if your hosting provider has wiped out cffile ... ? Then I am sure they won't let you install a CFX that does the same thing. I don't think they'd have any choice. Of course, what they should do, is provide a cf_file which is a wrapper round cffile, but appends your hosted directory path to all the path/filename arguments or something. -- Tom C Land of the free, home of the brave... you have to be brave to live there and enjoy the freedoms ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in ColdFusion and related topics. http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.cfm
Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
Thomas Chiverton wrote: On Thursday 04 Sep 2003 15:32 pm, Matt Liotta wrote: Right. But if your hosting provider has wiped out cffile ... ? Then I am sure they won't let you install a CFX that does the same thing. I don't think they'd have any choice. Of course, what they should do, is provide a cf_file which is a wrapper round cffile, but appends your hosted directory path to all the path/filename arguments or something. What they should do is not disable cffile in the first place, but secure it. Jochem ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm
RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
Better yet, why can't MM add some hosting-friendly options to the server global settings so that they can address a need for a major customer segment? Does a list of potential options exist? If we don't ask as a group with a unified voice, the request will never work its way to the top of the To-Do list. Kevin -Original Message- From: Thomas Chiverton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2003 8:20 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? I don't think they'd have any choice. Of course, what they should do, is provide a cf_file which is a wrapper round cffile, but appends your hosted directory path to all the path/filename arguments or something. ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com
RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
Ummm Maybe I'm confused... but doesn't sandboxing cover the requirements adressed here? IE I'm pretty damn sure you can't do anything particularly nasty with CFFILE or CFDIRECTORY on my shared boxes... because my sandboxes are locked down tight. Admittedly? if you're dealing with non enterprise licences you don't have sandboxes... but its a bit unrealistic to ask MM to give you one of the primary commercial incentives to upgrade with the cutdown distribution. -Original Message- From: Miller, Kevin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, 5 September 2003 1:50 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? Better yet, why can't MM add some hosting-friendly options to the server global settings so that they can address a need for a major customer segment? Does a list of potential options exist? If we don't ask as a group with a unified voice, the request will never work its way to the top of the To-Do list. Kevin -Original Message- From: Thomas Chiverton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2003 8:20 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? I don't think they'd have any choice. Of course, what they should do, is provide a cf_file which is a wrapper round cffile, but appends your hosted directory path to all the path/filename arguments or something. ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm
Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
This topic has been overloaded with comments, debates, etc. If you have something to post of technical merit, PLEASE post it with a subject that reflects the contents. Thank you p.s. debating semantics is NOT of technical merit for CF-Talk and should be taken to CF-OT. ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com
Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
Sean wrote: Maybe I'm confused... but doesn't sandboxing cover the requirements adressed here? Yes. Admittedly? if you're dealing with non enterprise licences you don't have sandboxes... I bet that if you know a bit about Java you can write your own .policy files and hack Sandbox Security into CF MX Standard Edition too. Jochem ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm
Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
Hey All, Just thought I'd chime in here. I've seen a lot of folks mentioning BlueDragon and how it may bring down hosting costs for CF. Well I'm not sure about the US, but CF is starting to be offered for NO EXTRA CHARGE up here in Canada. www.uniserve.com for example (and there are others). NT Hosting with SQL Server 2000 and CFMX in a shared environment for about $35 CDN/month and they rock!! I've used the company they recently acquired (Axion Internet) for the past 5 years and the service only got better after the merger. Beleive it or not the SQL Server does not even add any monthly cost...just a $25 CDN setup fee!! So while BD may help bring other ISPs down to earth.that move is already happening here ;-) Cheers Bryan Stevenson B.Comm. VP Director of E-Commerce Development Electric Edge Systems Group Inc. t. 250.920.8830 e. [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Macromedia Associate Partner www.macromedia.com - Vancouver Island ColdFusion Users Group Founder Director www.cfug-vancouverisland.com - Original Message - From: Jim Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 6:54 PM Subject: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? For me, I wouldn't at the moment just because I'm very happy where I am (CrystalTech). However BlueDragon has the definite potential to bring CF hosting prices down significantly (one of the complaints I here about CF) so I would really like to see it offered by a few hosts. As Vince pointed out in a branch from this thread BlueDragon also makes excellent sense for somebody that wants to package their CF application for use on a server lacking CF (which can be in either J2EE or, soon, .NET). Although this market has traditionally been very small with CF Blue Dragon may expand it greatly. Jim Davis -Original Message- From: Mike Brunt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 11:28 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? There is another question in the whole Bluedragon debate. How many of us would move our site(s) to a hosting company using BD instead of MM ColdFusion? Kind Regards - Mike Brunt Webapper Services LLC Web Site http://www.webapper.com Blog http://www.webapper.net Webapper Web Application Specialists -Original Message- From: Jim Davis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 7:56 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? -Original Message- From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 2:16 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? If your clients are small enough where the cost of CF is prohibitive it may be likely that the cost of managing an Intranet is also prohibitive (although they may be doing it anyway and have never done a cost analysis). I'll agree with that, but certainly the use of certain software e.g. CF could be what tips the scale. If that is the case, then a cheaper implementation of CFML (BlueDragon) can certainly help in that regard. It definitely has an effect, but in most cases (and certainly not in CF's case) the cost of software is very small compared to maintenance and general infrastructure costs. Even managing a small, single Intranet server using free software can be (often surprisingly) very costly once you do a full resource map/prediction - especially when extended to the life of the server. All that being said every little bit does help. ;^) If software costs are lower then you total project costs COULD definitely be lower (but often aren't due to other factors not commonly taken into account). Many hosting companies are hosting their Intranet at public hosts for this reason. There are some hosts that do nothing but traditional Intranet applications along with email (Exchange hosting, for example, is pretty common due to the cost and complexity of managing an Exchange server). That may be, but there are serious issues with outsourcing internal IT resources externally that many of these companies may not be aware of. One example of this is that their WAN connection becomes a single point of failure. Then of course there are legality issues related to giving non-employees access to sensitive data that aren't under specific consulting agreements, which is the case when your email is hosted by a 3rd party. All true - this all depends, of course, on how much the company wants to spend as well. If you want to get away more cheaply you'll be sacrificing some things. A full bullet-proof system will always cost more. No, consider an Intranet with is planned to contain, let's say, six distinct applications (not at all
RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
There's no such thing as a free lunch I would be leery of *free* CF and SQL Server, both of those cost a pretty penny and are not easy to cover without passing some of the cost on to customers. It also makes me wonder why they use the term FREE and not included when describing their plans. Which version of CF are they using? If it's Pro/Standard and not Enterprise, don't walk, but run away as fast as you can. Ryan -Original Message- From: Bryan Stevenson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 9:55 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? Hey All, Just thought I'd chime in here. I've seen a lot of folks mentioning BlueDragon and how it may bring down hosting costs for CF. Well I'm not sure about the US, but CF is starting to be offered for NO EXTRA CHARGE up here in Canada. www.uniserve.com for example (and there are others). NT Hosting with SQL Server 2000 and CFMX in a shared environment for about $35 CDN/month and they rock!! I've used the company they recently acquired (Axion Internet) for the past 5 years and the service only got better after the merger. Beleive it or not the SQL Server does not even add any monthly cost...just a $25 CDN setup fee!! So while BD may help bring other ISPs down to earth.that move is already happening here ;-) Cheers Bryan Stevenson B.Comm. VP Director of E-Commerce Development Electric Edge Systems Group Inc. t. 250.920.8830 e. [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Macromedia Associate Partner www.macromedia.com - Vancouver Island ColdFusion Users Group Founder Director www.cfug-vancouverisland.com - Original Message - From: Jim Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 6:54 PM Subject: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? For me, I wouldn't at the moment just because I'm very happy where I am (CrystalTech). However BlueDragon has the definite potential to bring CF hosting prices down significantly (one of the complaints I here about CF) so I would really like to see it offered by a few hosts. As Vince pointed out in a branch from this thread BlueDragon also makes excellent sense for somebody that wants to package their CF application for use on a server lacking CF (which can be in either J2EE or, soon, .NET). Although this market has traditionally been very small with CF Blue Dragon may expand it greatly. Jim Davis -Original Message- From: Mike Brunt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 11:28 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? There is another question in the whole Bluedragon debate. How many of us would move our site(s) to a hosting company using BD instead of MM ColdFusion? Kind Regards - Mike Brunt Webapper Services LLC Web Site http://www.webapper.com Blog http://www.webapper.net Webapper Web Application Specialists -Original Message- From: Jim Davis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 7:56 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? -Original Message- From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 2:16 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? If your clients are small enough where the cost of CF is prohibitive it may be likely that the cost of managing an Intranet is also prohibitive (although they may be doing it anyway and have never done a cost analysis). I'll agree with that, but certainly the use of certain software e.g. CF could be what tips the scale. If that is the case, then a cheaper implementation of CFML (BlueDragon) can certainly help in that regard. It definitely has an effect, but in most cases (and certainly not in CF's case) the cost of software is very small compared to maintenance and general infrastructure costs. Even managing a small, single Intranet server using free software can be (often surprisingly) very costly once you do a full resource map/prediction - especially when extended to the life of the server. All that being said every little bit does help. ;^) If software costs are lower then you total project costs COULD definitely be lower (but often aren't due to other factors not commonly taken into account). Many hosting companies are hosting their Intranet at public hosts for this reason. There are some hosts that do nothing but traditional Intranet applications along with email (Exchange hosting, for example, is pretty common due to the cost and complexity of managing an Exchange server). That may be, but there are serious issues with outsourcing internal IT resources externally that many of these companies may not be aware of. One example
Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
There's no such thing as a free lunch I would be leery of *free* CF and SQL Server, both of those cost a pretty penny and are not easy to cover without passing some of the cost on to customers. It also makes me wonder why they use the term FREE and not included when describing their plans. Which version of CF are they using? If it's Pro/Standard and not Enterprise, don't walk, but run away as fast as you can. Other companies offer low prices too: http://www.crystaltech.com/plan2.htm The quality is excellent, with SQL Server 2000 and CF 6.1 Enterprise running on Win 2003. Hosting prices keep going down, not as fast as a few years ago, but they are more affordable than ever Massimo Foti Certified Dreamweaver MX Developer Certified Advanced ColdFusion MX Developer http://www.massimocorner.com/ ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm
RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
That's a $10 a month difference and they list out versions they use. I see that pricing as more agreeable for both sides and I think it's great that prices are coming down. There's a threshold where you start to lose money on every new customer and I'm sure it's different for everyone. But I remember Dell got into hosting and were offering $16.95 plans with CF. Guess how long that lasted? About a year. And they are a huge company, so it makes me wonder about the smaller hosts and their ability to sustain at that level of price vs. features without cutting corners. Just want to make sure people ask the right questions when they look for hosting. I look forward to seeing that BD hosting list. -Ryan -Original Message- From: Massimo Foti [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 10:15 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? There's no such thing as a free lunch I would be leery of *free* CF and SQL Server, both of those cost a pretty penny and are not easy to cover without passing some of the cost on to customers. It also makes me wonder why they use the term FREE and not included when describing their plans. Which version of CF are they using? If it's Pro/Standard and not Enterprise, don't walk, but run away as fast as you can. Other companies offer low prices too: http://www.crystaltech.com/plan2.htm The quality is excellent, with SQL Server 2000 and CF 6.1 Enterprise running on Win 2003. Hosting prices keep going down, not as fast as a few years ago, but they are more affordable than ever Massimo Foti Certified Dreamweaver MX Developer Certified Advanced ColdFusion MX Developer http://www.massimocorner.com/ ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com
CFObject in shared host? (Was: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? )
I know this has been covered before but has there been any solutions to using CFObject in a shared host without creating a security hazard? Cheers -Original Message- From: Ryan Kime [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 03 September 2003 16:36 To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? That's a $10 a month difference and they list out versions they use. I see that pricing as more agreeable for both sides and I think it's great that prices are coming down. There's a threshold where you start to lose money on every new customer and I'm sure it's different for everyone. But I remember Dell got into hosting and were offering $16.95 plans with CF. Guess how long that lasted? About a year. And they are a huge company, so it makes me wonder about the smaller hosts and their ability to sustain at that level of price vs. features without cutting corners. Just want to make sure people ask the right questions when they look for hosting. I look forward to seeing that BD hosting list. -Ryan -Original Message- From: Massimo Foti [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 10:15 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? There's no such thing as a free lunch I would be leery of *free* CF and SQL Server, both of those cost a pretty penny and are not easy to cover without passing some of the cost on to customers. It also makes me wonder why they use the term FREE and not included when describing their plans. Which version of CF are they using? If it's Pro/Standard and not Enterprise, don't walk, but run away as fast as you can. Other companies offer low prices too: http://www.crystaltech.com/plan2.htm The quality is excellent, with SQL Server 2000 and CF 6.1 Enterprise running on Win 2003. Hosting prices keep going down, not as fast as a few years ago, but they are more affordable than ever Massimo Foti Certified Dreamweaver MX Developer Certified Advanced ColdFusion MX Developer http://www.massimocorner.com/ ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm
RE: CFObject in shared host? (Was: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? )
We let customers use it on our advanced plans. We are running sandbox security to prevent any accidents ;-) Dan Phillips www.CFXHosting.com 1-866-239-4678 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Do you want complete ColdFusion Administrator access? RDS? Terminal Server?- CFX-Advanced VPS - http://www.cfxhosting.com/Plans/s_cfxadvancedVPS.cfm -Original Message- From: Oliver Cookson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 11:40 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: CFObject in shared host? (Was: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? ) I know this has been covered before but has there been any solutions to using CFObject in a shared host without creating a security hazard? Cheers -Original Message- From: Ryan Kime [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 03 September 2003 16:36 To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? That's a $10 a month difference and they list out versions they use. I see that pricing as more agreeable for both sides and I think it's great that prices are coming down. There's a threshold where you start to lose money on every new customer and I'm sure it's different for everyone. But I remember Dell got into hosting and were offering $16.95 plans with CF. Guess how long that lasted? About a year. And they are a huge company, so it makes me wonder about the smaller hosts and their ability to sustain at that level of price vs. features without cutting corners. Just want to make sure people ask the right questions when they look for hosting. I look forward to seeing that BD hosting list. -Ryan -Original Message- From: Massimo Foti [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 10:15 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? There's no such thing as a free lunch I would be leery of *free* CF and SQL Server, both of those cost a pretty penny and are not easy to cover without passing some of the cost on to customers. It also makes me wonder why they use the term FREE and not included when describing their plans. Which version of CF are they using? If it's Pro/Standard and not Enterprise, don't walk, but run away as fast as you can. Other companies offer low prices too: http://www.crystaltech.com/plan2.htm The quality is excellent, with SQL Server 2000 and CF 6.1 Enterprise running on Win 2003. Hosting prices keep going down, not as fast as a few years ago, but they are more affordable than ever Massimo Foti Certified Dreamweaver MX Developer Certified Advanced ColdFusion MX Developer http://www.massimocorner.com/ ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm
Re: CFObject in shared host? (Was: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? )
Dan Phillips (CFXHosting.com) wrote: We let customers use it on our advanced plans. We are running sandbox security to prevent any accidents ;-) How does Sandbox Security protect you from accidents with COM objects like the FSO? Jochem ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm
RE: CFObject in shared host? (Was: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? )
I'm the wrong person to give you technical specs on that. Stephenie Hamilton set all that up for us way back when we first started. We don't have it enabled for just anyone though. It has to be requested and we more or less interview the person running the site and check out their code as well. That way if there are problems, we know who to go to. If we feel funny about them, we deny it. In 3 years though, we have never had an issue or turned anyone down for this. -Original Message- From: Jochem van Dieten [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 11:50 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: CFObject in shared host? (Was: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? ) Dan Phillips (CFXHosting.com) wrote: We let customers use it on our advanced plans. We are running sandbox security to prevent any accidents ;-) How does Sandbox Security protect you from accidents with COM objects like the FSO? Jochem ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm
Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
Well Ryan they are absolutely great and in 5 years I have never had a CF related problem that wasn't fixed within 15 minutes of it being found (and I can count how many issues on one hand). I used the word free.they use the word included. Why would you run away if they are using Pro/Standard? Why should they use Enterprise if it's not required (i.e. clustering/load balancing etc.). These guys are a national ISP and can easily absorb the cost of the softwarethat's how. Cheers Bryan Stevenson B.Comm. VP Director of E-Commerce Development Electric Edge Systems Group Inc. t. 250.920.8830 e. [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Macromedia Associate Partner www.macromedia.com - Vancouver Island ColdFusion Users Group Founder Director www.cfug-vancouverisland.com - Original Message - From: Ryan Kime [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 8:13 AM Subject: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? There's no such thing as a free lunch I would be leery of *free* CF and SQL Server, both of those cost a pretty penny and are not easy to cover without passing some of the cost on to customers. It also makes me wonder why they use the term FREE and not included when describing their plans. Which version of CF are they using? If it's Pro/Standard and not Enterprise, don't walk, but run away as fast as you can. Ryan -Original Message- From: Bryan Stevenson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 9:55 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? Hey All, Just thought I'd chime in here. I've seen a lot of folks mentioning BlueDragon and how it may bring down hosting costs for CF. Well I'm not sure about the US, but CF is starting to be offered for NO EXTRA CHARGE up here in Canada. www.uniserve.com for example (and there are others). NT Hosting with SQL Server 2000 and CFMX in a shared environment for about $35 CDN/month and they rock!! I've used the company they recently acquired (Axion Internet) for the past 5 years and the service only got better after the merger. Beleive it or not the SQL Server does not even add any monthly cost...just a $25 CDN setup fee!! So while BD may help bring other ISPs down to earth.that move is already happening here ;-) Cheers Bryan Stevenson B.Comm. VP Director of E-Commerce Development Electric Edge Systems Group Inc. t. 250.920.8830 e. [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Macromedia Associate Partner www.macromedia.com - Vancouver Island ColdFusion Users Group Founder Director www.cfug-vancouverisland.com - Original Message - From: Jim Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 6:54 PM Subject: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? For me, I wouldn't at the moment just because I'm very happy where I am (CrystalTech). However BlueDragon has the definite potential to bring CF hosting prices down significantly (one of the complaints I here about CF) so I would really like to see it offered by a few hosts. As Vince pointed out in a branch from this thread BlueDragon also makes excellent sense for somebody that wants to package their CF application for use on a server lacking CF (which can be in either J2EE or, soon, .NET). Although this market has traditionally been very small with CF Blue Dragon may expand it greatly. Jim Davis -Original Message- From: Mike Brunt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 11:28 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? There is another question in the whole Bluedragon debate. How many of us would move our site(s) to a hosting company using BD instead of MM ColdFusion? Kind Regards - Mike Brunt Webapper Services LLC Web Site http://www.webapper.com Blog http://www.webapper.net Webapper Web Application Specialists -Original Message- From: Jim Davis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 7:56 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? -Original Message- From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 2:16 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? If your clients are small enough where the cost of CF is prohibitive it may be likely that the cost of managing an Intranet is also prohibitive (although they may be doing it anyway and have never done a cost analysis). I'll agree with that, but certainly the use of certain software e.g. CF could be what tips the scale. If that is the case, then a cheaper implementation of CFML (BlueDragon) can
RE: CFObject in shared host? (Was: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? )
Turning off cfobject doesn't really protect the server, at least with CFMX. You can create Java class instances using standard CFML without using cfobject/createobject (it's just a little more work). Sam -- Blog: http://www.rewindlife.com Chart: http://www.blinex.com/products/charting -- -Original Message- From: Oliver Cookson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 11:40 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: CFObject in shared host? (Was: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? ) I know this has been covered before but has there been any solutions to using CFObject in a shared host without creating a security hazard? Cheers ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm
Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
Actually PRO standard supports web site quite well, unless you want separate instantiations for each site. But Blue Dragon is coming right along, and I expect to see its adoption for smaller sites start spreading. On the other hand, from a server standpoint, there are costs other than software licensing. Deployment and connectivity are no small items to consider, In our operation, we prefer not to load up a shared server with tons and tons of web sites. but prefer to spread them over several servers, which will enhance performance for each hosted site. == Stop spam on your domain, use our gateway! For hosting solutions http://www.clickdoug.com Featuring Win2003 Enterprise, RedHat Linux, CFMX 6.1 and all databases. ISP rated: http://www.forta.com/cf/isp/isp.cfm?isp_id=772 Suggested corporate Anti-virus policy: http://www.dshield.org/antivirus.pdf == If you are not satisfied with my service, my job isn't done! - Original Message - From: Ryan Kime [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 10:13 AM Subject: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? | There's no such thing as a free lunch | | I would be leery of *free* CF and SQL Server, both of those cost a pretty | penny and are not easy to cover without passing some of the cost on to | customers. It also makes me wonder why they use the term FREE and not | included when describing their plans. | | Which version of CF are they using? If it's Pro/Standard and not Enterprise, | don't walk, but run away as fast as you can. | | Ryan | | -Original Message- | From: Bryan Stevenson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 9:55 AM | To: CF-Talk | Subject: Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? | | | Hey All, | | Just thought I'd chime in here. | | I've seen a lot of folks mentioning BlueDragon and how it may bring down | hosting costs for CF. Well I'm not sure about the US, but CF is starting to | be offered for NO EXTRA CHARGE up here in Canada. | | www.uniserve.com for example (and there are others). | | NT Hosting with SQL Server 2000 and CFMX in a shared environment for about | $35 CDN/month and they rock!! I've used the company they recently acquired | (Axion Internet) for the past 5 years and the service only got better after | the merger. Beleive it or not the SQL Server does not even add any monthly | cost...just a $25 CDN setup fee!! | | So while BD may help bring other ISPs down to earth.that move is already | happening here ;-) | | Cheers | | Bryan Stevenson B.Comm. | VP Director of E-Commerce Development | Electric Edge Systems Group Inc. | t. 250.920.8830 | e. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | - | Macromedia Associate Partner | www.macromedia.com | - | Vancouver Island ColdFusion Users Group | Founder Director | www.cfug-vancouverisland.com | - Original Message - | From: Jim Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] | To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 6:54 PM | Subject: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? | | | For me, I wouldn't at the moment just because I'm very happy where I | am (CrystalTech). | | However BlueDragon has the definite potential to bring CF hosting | prices down significantly (one of the complaints I here about CF) so I | would really like to see it offered by a few hosts. | | As Vince pointed out in a branch from this thread BlueDragon also | makes excellent sense for somebody that wants to package their CF | application for use on a server lacking CF (which can be in either | J2EE or, soon, .NET). | | Although this market has traditionally been very small with CF Blue | Dragon may expand it greatly. | | Jim Davis | | -Original Message- | From: Mike Brunt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 11:28 AM | To: CF-Talk | Subject: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? | | There is another question in the whole Bluedragon debate. How many | of | us | would move our site(s) to a hosting company using BD instead of MM | ColdFusion? | | Kind Regards - Mike Brunt | Webapper Services LLC | Web Site http://www.webapper.com | Blog http://www.webapper.net | | Webapper Web Application Specialists | | -Original Message- | From: Jim Davis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 7:56 AM | To: CF-Talk | Subject: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? | |-Original Message- |From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] |Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 2:16 AM |To: CF-Talk |Subject: Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? | | If your clients are small enough where the cost of CF is | prohibitive | it | may be likely that the cost of managing an Intranet is also | prohibitive | (although they may be doing it anyway and have
Re: CFObject in shared host? (Was: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? )
Whether cfobject is enabled or not doesn't affect the insecurity of a CFMX installation for shared hosting. For example... cfscript badThing = CreateObject(java, a.BadThing); // is the same as... foo = ; clazz = foo.getClass(); clazz = clazz.forName(a.badThing); badThing = clazz.newInstance(); /cfscript -Matt On Wednesday, September 3, 2003, at 11:40 AM, Oliver Cookson wrote: I know this has been covered before but has there been any solutions to using CFObject in a shared host without creating a security hazard? Cheers -Original Message- From: Ryan Kime [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 03 September 2003 16:36 To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? That's a $10 a month difference and they list out versions they use. I see that pricing as more agreeable for both sides and I think it's great that prices are coming down. There's a threshold where you start to lose money on every new customer and I'm sure it's different for everyone. But I remember Dell got into hosting and were offering $16.95 plans with CF. Guess how long that lasted? About a year. And they are a huge company, so it makes me wonder about the smaller hosts and their ability to sustain at that level of price vs. features without cutting corners. Just want to make sure people ask the right questions when they look for hosting. I look forward to seeing that BD hosting list. -Ryan -Original Message- From: Massimo Foti [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 10:15 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? There's no such thing as a free lunch I would be leery of *free* CF and SQL Server, both of those cost a pretty penny and are not easy to cover without passing some of the cost on to customers. It also makes me wonder why they use the term FREE and not included when describing their plans. Which version of CF are they using? If it's Pro/Standard and not Enterprise, don't walk, but run away as fast as you can. Other companies offer low prices too: http://www.crystaltech.com/plan2.htm The quality is excellent, with SQL Server 2000 and CF 6.1 Enterprise running on Win 2003. Hosting prices keep going down, not as fast as a few years ago, but they are more affordable than ever Massimo Foti Certified Dreamweaver MX Developer Certified Advanced ColdFusion MX Developer http://www.massimocorner.com/ ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm
RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
I used the word free.they use the word included Semantics, I know, but here is the page I am referring to: http://www.uniserve.com/bus/usa/web/rates_glance.php?c=nt Why should they use Enterprise if it's not required (i.e. clustering/load balancing etc.). H...maybe to keep other people from using your database connections and your custom tags. Plus keep the general population on the server from using cfdirectory/cffile outside their account's root. That's enough to make me look elsewhere. -Original Message- From: Bryan Stevenson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 11:07 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? Well Ryan they are absolutely great and in 5 years I have never had a CF related problem that wasn't fixed within 15 minutes of it being found (and I can count how many issues on one hand). I used the word free.they use the word included. Why would you run away if they are using Pro/Standard? Why should they use Enterprise if it's not required (i.e. clustering/load balancing etc.). These guys are a national ISP and can easily absorb the cost of the softwarethat's how. Cheers Bryan Stevenson B.Comm. VP Director of E-Commerce Development Electric Edge Systems Group Inc. t. 250.920.8830 e. [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Macromedia Associate Partner www.macromedia.com - Vancouver Island ColdFusion Users Group Founder Director www.cfug-vancouverisland.com - Original Message - From: Ryan Kime [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 8:13 AM Subject: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? There's no such thing as a free lunch I would be leery of *free* CF and SQL Server, both of those cost a pretty penny and are not easy to cover without passing some of the cost on to customers. It also makes me wonder why they use the term FREE and not included when describing their plans. Which version of CF are they using? If it's Pro/Standard and not Enterprise, don't walk, but run away as fast as you can. Ryan -Original Message- From: Bryan Stevenson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 9:55 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? Hey All, Just thought I'd chime in here. I've seen a lot of folks mentioning BlueDragon and how it may bring down hosting costs for CF. Well I'm not sure about the US, but CF is starting to be offered for NO EXTRA CHARGE up here in Canada. www.uniserve.com for example (and there are others). NT Hosting with SQL Server 2000 and CFMX in a shared environment for about $35 CDN/month and they rock!! I've used the company they recently acquired (Axion Internet) for the past 5 years and the service only got better after the merger. Beleive it or not the SQL Server does not even add any monthly cost...just a $25 CDN setup fee!! So while BD may help bring other ISPs down to earth.that move is already happening here ;-) Cheers Bryan Stevenson B.Comm. VP Director of E-Commerce Development Electric Edge Systems Group Inc. t. 250.920.8830 e. [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Macromedia Associate Partner www.macromedia.com - Vancouver Island ColdFusion Users Group Founder Director www.cfug-vancouverisland.com - Original Message - From: Jim Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 6:54 PM Subject: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? For me, I wouldn't at the moment just because I'm very happy where I am (CrystalTech). However BlueDragon has the definite potential to bring CF hosting prices down significantly (one of the complaints I here about CF) so I would really like to see it offered by a few hosts. As Vince pointed out in a branch from this thread BlueDragon also makes excellent sense for somebody that wants to package their CF application for use on a server lacking CF (which can be in either J2EE or, soon, .NET). Although this market has traditionally been very small with CF Blue Dragon may expand it greatly. Jim Davis -Original Message- From: Mike Brunt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 11:28 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? There is another question in the whole Bluedragon debate. How many of us would move our site(s) to a hosting company using BD instead of MM ColdFusion? Kind Regards - Mike Brunt Webapper Services LLC Web Site http://www.webapper.com Blog http://www.webapper.net Webapper Web Application Specialists -Original Message- From: Jim Davis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 7:56 AM
Re: CFObject in shared host? (Was: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? )
Matt Liotta wrote: Whether cfobject is enabled or not doesn't affect the insecurity of a CFMX installation for shared hosting. For example... cfscript badThing = CreateObject(java, a.BadThing); // is the same as... foo = ; clazz = foo.getClass(); clazz = clazz.forName(a.badThing); badThing = clazz.newInstance(); /cfscript But that stills run in the Sandbox, because CF MX leverages the security built in to Java. So that means that all restrictions on the filesystem and ports still apply. What I am wondering is whether you can use this mechanism to either invoke a COM object or to access the runtime service or the security service. And if you can invoke COM objects, whether you still can after all JIntegra files have been removed. Jochem ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm
Re: CFObject in shared host? (Was: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? )
Probably correct, but any shared hosting provider would probably immediately close your account upon the appearance of code such as that - All of them do have Terms of Service and a legitimate user will comply willingly. == Stop spam on your domain, use our gateway! For hosting solutions http://www.clickdoug.com Featuring Win2003 Enterprise, RedHat Linux, CFMX 6.1 and all databases. ISP rated: http://www.forta.com/cf/isp/isp.cfm?isp_id=772 Suggested corporate Anti-virus policy: http://www.dshield.org/antivirus.pdf == If you are not satisfied with my service, my job isn't done! - Original Message - From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 11:12 AM Subject: Re: CFObject in shared host? (Was: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? ) | Whether cfobject is enabled or not doesn't affect the insecurity of a | CFMX installation for shared hosting. For example... | | cfscript | badThing = CreateObject(java, a.BadThing); | // is the same as... | foo = ; | clazz = foo.getClass(); | clazz = clazz.forName(a.badThing); | badThing = clazz.newInstance(); | /cfscript | | -Matt | | On Wednesday, September 3, 2003, at 11:40 AM, Oliver Cookson wrote: | | I know this has been covered before but has there been any solutions to | using CFObject in a shared host without creating a security hazard? | | Cheers | | -Original Message- | From: Ryan Kime [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | Sent: 03 September 2003 16:36 | To: CF-Talk | Subject: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? | | | That's a $10 a month difference and they list out versions they use. I | see that pricing as more agreeable for both sides and I think it's | great | that prices are coming down. | | There's a threshold where you start to lose money on every new customer | and I'm sure it's different for everyone. But I remember Dell got into | hosting and were offering $16.95 plans with CF. Guess how long that | lasted? About a year. And they are a huge company, so it makes me | wonder | about the smaller hosts and their ability to sustain at that level of | price vs. features without cutting corners. | | Just want to make sure people ask the right questions when they look | for | hosting. I look forward to seeing that BD hosting list. | | -Ryan | | -Original Message- | From: Massimo Foti [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 10:15 AM | To: CF-Talk | Subject: Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? | | | There's no such thing as a free lunch | | I would be leery of *free* CF and SQL Server, both of those cost a | pretty penny and are not easy to cover without passing some of the | cost on to customers. It also makes me wonder why they use the term | FREE and not included when describing their plans. | | Which version of CF are they using? If it's Pro/Standard and not | Enterprise, | don't walk, but run away as fast as you can. | | Other companies offer low prices too: | | http://www.crystaltech.com/plan2.htm | | The quality is excellent, with SQL Server 2000 and CF 6.1 Enterprise | running on Win 2003. Hosting prices keep going down, not as fast as a | few years ago, but they are more affordable than ever | | | Massimo Foti | Certified Dreamweaver MX Developer | Certified Advanced ColdFusion MX Developer | http://www.massimocorner.com/ | | | | | | | ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm
Re: CFObject in shared host? (Was: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? )
I have been able to successfully create a trojan that can be invoked only using Java reflection such as below and easily installed into a CFMX instance. -Matt On Wednesday, September 3, 2003, at 12:35 PM, Jochem van Dieten wrote: Matt Liotta wrote: Whether cfobject is enabled or not doesn't affect the insecurity of a CFMX installation for shared hosting. For example... cfscript badThing = CreateObject(java, a.BadThing); // is the same as... foo = ; clazz = foo.getClass(); clazz = clazz.forName(a.badThing); badThing = clazz.newInstance(); /cfscript But that stills run in the Sandbox, because CF MX leverages the security built in to Java. So that means that all restrictions on the filesystem and ports still apply. What I am wondering is whether you can use this mechanism to either invoke a COM object or to access the runtime service or the security service. And if you can invoke COM objects, whether you still can after all JIntegra files have been removed. Jochem ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm
Re: CFObject in shared host? (Was: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? )
An unscrupulous person could easily reformat a server's hard drive, kill databases, plant viruses, and do all sorts of nasty things way before anybody at the hosting company would even have a clue about what's going on. - Original Message - From: Doug White [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wednesday, September 3, 2003 10:40 am Subject: Re: CFObject in shared host? (Was: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? ) Probably correct, but any shared hosting provider would probably immediatelyclose your account upon the appearance of code such as that - All of them do have Terms of Service and a legitimate user will comply willingly. == Stop spam on your domain, use our gateway! For hosting solutions http://www.clickdoug.com Featuring Win2003 Enterprise, RedHat Linux, CFMX 6.1 and all databases.ISP rated: http://www.forta.com/cf/isp/isp.cfm?isp_id=772 Suggested corporate Anti-virus policy: http://www.dshield.org/antivirus.pdf== If you are not satisfied with my service, my job isn't done! - Original Message - From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 11:12 AM Subject: Re: CFObject in shared host? (Was: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? ) | Whether cfobject is enabled or not doesn't affect the insecurity of a | CFMX installation for shared hosting. For example... | | cfscript | badThing = CreateObject(java, a.BadThing); | // is the same as... | foo = ; | clazz = foo.getClass(); | clazz = clazz.forName(a.badThing); | badThing = clazz.newInstance(); | /cfscript | | -Matt | | On Wednesday, September 3, 2003, at 11:40 AM, Oliver Cookson wrote: | | I know this has been covered before but has there been any solutions to | using CFObject in a shared host without creating a security hazard?| | Cheers | | -Original Message- | From: Ryan Kime [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Sent: 03 September 2003 16:36 | To: CF-Talk | Subject: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? | | | That's a $10 a month difference and they list out versions they use. I | see that pricing as more agreeable for both sides and I think it's | great | that prices are coming down. | | There's a threshold where you start to lose money on every new customer| and I'm sure it's different for everyone. But I remember Dell got into | hosting and were offering $16.95 plans with CF. Guess how long that| lasted? About a year. And they are a huge company, so it makes me | wonder | about the smaller hosts and their ability to sustain at that level of | price vs. features without cutting corners. | | Just want to make sure people ask the right questions when they look | for | hosting. I look forward to seeing that BD hosting list. | | -Ryan | | -Original Message- | From: Massimo Foti [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 10:15 AM | To: CF-Talk | Subject: Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? | | | There's no such thing as a free lunch | | I would be leery of *free* CF and SQL Server, both of those cost a | pretty penny and are not easy to cover without passing some of the | cost on to customers. It also makes me wonder why they use the term | FREE and not included when describing their plans. | | Which version of CF are they using? If it's Pro/Standard and not | Enterprise, | don't walk, but run away as fast as you can. | | Other companies offer low prices too: | | http://www.crystaltech.com/plan2.htm | | The quality is excellent, with SQL Server 2000 and CF 6.1 Enterprise| running on Win 2003. Hosting prices keep going down, not as fast as a | few years ago, but they are more affordable than ever | | | Massimo Foti | Certified Dreamweaver MX Developer | Certified Advanced ColdFusion MX Developer | http://www.massimocorner.com/ | | | | | | | ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm
Re: CFObject in shared host? (Was: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? )
Matt Liotta wrote: I have been able to successfully create a trojan that can be invoked only using Java reflection such as below and easily installed into a CFMX instance. You mean as in uploaded a .jar and added it to the class path etc? Wouldn't that require write permissions to the JVM config file? Jochem ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm
Re: CFObject in shared host? (Was: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? )
CFMX is more than happy to give you permission to change the classpath it uses. Matt Liotta President CEO Montara Software, Inc. http://www.MontaraSoftware.com (888) 408-0900 x901 ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm
Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
Hey Ryan, Fair enough to a certain degreethat said...I'm about 99.9% sure they use Enterprise ;-) Bryan Stevenson B.Comm. VP Director of E-Commerce Development Electric Edge Systems Group Inc. t. 250.920.8830 e. [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Macromedia Associate Partner www.macromedia.com - Vancouver Island ColdFusion Users Group Founder Director www.cfug-vancouverisland.com - Original Message - From: Ryan Kime [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 9:29 AM Subject: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? I used the word free.they use the word included Semantics, I know, but here is the page I am referring to: http://www.uniserve.com/bus/usa/web/rates_glance.php?c=nt Why should they use Enterprise if it's not required (i.e. clustering/load balancing etc.). H...maybe to keep other people from using your database connections and your custom tags. Plus keep the general population on the server from using cfdirectory/cffile outside their account's root. That's enough to make me look elsewhere. -Original Message- From: Bryan Stevenson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 11:07 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? Well Ryan they are absolutely great and in 5 years I have never had a CF related problem that wasn't fixed within 15 minutes of it being found (and I can count how many issues on one hand). I used the word free.they use the word included. Why would you run away if they are using Pro/Standard? Why should they use Enterprise if it's not required (i.e. clustering/load balancing etc.). These guys are a national ISP and can easily absorb the cost of the softwarethat's how. Cheers Bryan Stevenson B.Comm. VP Director of E-Commerce Development Electric Edge Systems Group Inc. t. 250.920.8830 e. [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Macromedia Associate Partner www.macromedia.com - Vancouver Island ColdFusion Users Group Founder Director www.cfug-vancouverisland.com - Original Message - From: Ryan Kime [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 8:13 AM Subject: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? There's no such thing as a free lunch I would be leery of *free* CF and SQL Server, both of those cost a pretty penny and are not easy to cover without passing some of the cost on to customers. It also makes me wonder why they use the term FREE and not included when describing their plans. Which version of CF are they using? If it's Pro/Standard and not Enterprise, don't walk, but run away as fast as you can. Ryan -Original Message- From: Bryan Stevenson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 9:55 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? Hey All, Just thought I'd chime in here. I've seen a lot of folks mentioning BlueDragon and how it may bring down hosting costs for CF. Well I'm not sure about the US, but CF is starting to be offered for NO EXTRA CHARGE up here in Canada. www.uniserve.com for example (and there are others). NT Hosting with SQL Server 2000 and CFMX in a shared environment for about $35 CDN/month and they rock!! I've used the company they recently acquired (Axion Internet) for the past 5 years and the service only got better after the merger. Beleive it or not the SQL Server does not even add any monthly cost...just a $25 CDN setup fee!! So while BD may help bring other ISPs down to earth.that move is already happening here ;-) Cheers Bryan Stevenson B.Comm. VP Director of E-Commerce Development Electric Edge Systems Group Inc. t. 250.920.8830 e. [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Macromedia Associate Partner www.macromedia.com - Vancouver Island ColdFusion Users Group Founder Director www.cfug-vancouverisland.com - Original Message - From: Jim Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 6:54 PM Subject: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? For me, I wouldn't at the moment just because I'm very happy where I am (CrystalTech). However BlueDragon has the definite potential to bring CF hosting prices down significantly (one of the complaints I here about CF) so I would really like to see it offered by a few hosts. As Vince pointed out in a branch from this thread BlueDragon also makes excellent sense for somebody that wants to package their CF application for use on a server lacking CF (which can be in either J2EE or, soon
Re: CFObject in shared host? (Was: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? )
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: An unscrupulous person could easily reformat a server's hard drive, kill databases, plant viruses, and do all sorts of nasty things way before anybody at the hosting company would even have a clue about what's going on. Not unless you are running CF as root/system. Jochem ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm
Re: CFObject in shared host? (Was: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? )
Matt Liotta wrote: CFMX is more than happy to give you permission to change the classpath it uses. That is not my experience. If the CF MX base directory is configured to be read-only, CF MX will not write there. But with the current bug in the way sandboxes are inherited to lower directories, configuring CF MX that way is a bit problematic. Jochem ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm
Re: CFObject in shared host? (Was: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? )
If you remove CFMX's ability to change the classpath then you would also remove my ability to change it. However, that is not the general configuration used by hosting companies. Matt Liotta President CEO Montara Software, Inc. http://www.MontaraSoftware.com (888) 408-0900 x901 ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm
Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
Most Shared providers disable CFFILE and CFDIRECTORY anyway == Stop spam on your domain, use our gateway! For hosting solutions http://www.clickdoug.com Featuring Win2003 Enterprise, RedHat Linux, CFMX 6.1 and all databases. ISP rated: http://www.forta.com/cf/isp/isp.cfm?isp_id=772 Suggested corporate Anti-virus policy: http://www.dshield.org/antivirus.pdf == If you are not satisfied with my service, my job isn't done! - Original Message - From: Ryan Kime [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 11:29 AM Subject: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? | I used the word free.they use the word included | | Semantics, I know, but here is the page I am referring to: | | http://www.uniserve.com/bus/usa/web/rates_glance.php?c=nt | | | Why should they use Enterprise if it's not required (i.e. clustering/load | balancing etc.). | | H...maybe to keep other people from using your database connections and | your custom tags. Plus keep the general population on the server from using | cfdirectory/cffile outside their account's root. That's enough to make me | look elsewhere. | | | -Original Message- | From: Bryan Stevenson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 11:07 AM | To: CF-Talk | Subject: Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? | | | Well Ryan they are absolutely great and in 5 years I have never had a CF | related problem that wasn't fixed within 15 minutes of it being found (and I | can count how many issues on one hand). | | I used the word free.they use the word included. | | Why would you run away if they are using Pro/Standard? Why should they | use Enterprise if it's not required (i.e. clustering/load balancing etc.). | | These guys are a national ISP and can easily absorb the cost of the | softwarethat's how. | | Cheers | | Bryan Stevenson B.Comm. | VP Director of E-Commerce Development | Electric Edge Systems Group Inc. | t. 250.920.8830 | e. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | - | Macromedia Associate Partner | www.macromedia.com | - | Vancouver Island ColdFusion Users Group | Founder Director | www.cfug-vancouverisland.com | - Original Message - | From: Ryan Kime [EMAIL PROTECTED] | To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 8:13 AM | Subject: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? | | | There's no such thing as a free lunch | | I would be leery of *free* CF and SQL Server, both of those cost a | pretty penny and are not easy to cover without passing some of the | cost on to customers. It also makes me wonder why they use the term | FREE and not included when describing their plans. | | Which version of CF are they using? If it's Pro/Standard and not | Enterprise, | don't walk, but run away as fast as you can. | | Ryan | | -Original Message- | From: Bryan Stevenson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 9:55 AM | To: CF-Talk | Subject: Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? | | | Hey All, | | Just thought I'd chime in here. | | I've seen a lot of folks mentioning BlueDragon and how it may bring | down hosting costs for CF. Well I'm not sure about the US, but CF is | starting | to | be offered for NO EXTRA CHARGE up here in Canada. | | www.uniserve.com for example (and there are others). | | NT Hosting with SQL Server 2000 and CFMX in a shared environment for | about $35 CDN/month and they rock!! I've used the company they | recently | acquired | (Axion Internet) for the past 5 years and the service only got better | after | the merger. Beleive it or not the SQL Server does not even add any | monthly | cost...just a $25 CDN setup fee!! | | So while BD may help bring other ISPs down to earth.that move is | already | happening here ;-) | | Cheers | | Bryan Stevenson B.Comm. | VP Director of E-Commerce Development | Electric Edge Systems Group Inc. | t. 250.920.8830 | e. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | - | Macromedia Associate Partner | www.macromedia.com | - | Vancouver Island ColdFusion Users Group | Founder Director | www.cfug-vancouverisland.com | - Original Message - | From: Jim Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] | To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 6:54 PM | Subject: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? | | | For me, I wouldn't at the moment just because I'm very happy where I | am (CrystalTech). | | However BlueDragon has the definite potential to bring CF hosting | prices down significantly (one of the complaints I here about CF) so | I would really like to see it offered by a few hosts. | | As Vince pointed out in a branch from this thread BlueDragon also | makes
Re: CFObject in shared host? (Was: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? )
I don't see that as a vulnerability in my case - your mileage may vary. == Stop spam on your domain, use our gateway! For hosting solutions http://www.clickdoug.com Featuring Win2003 Enterprise, RedHat Linux, CFMX 6.1 and all databases. ISP rated: http://www.forta.com/cf/isp/isp.cfm?isp_id=772 Suggested corporate Anti-virus policy: http://www.dshield.org/antivirus.pdf == If you are not satisfied with my service, my job isn't done! - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 11:53 AM Subject: Re: CFObject in shared host? (Was: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? ) | An unscrupulous person could easily reformat a server's hard drive, kill databases, plant viruses, and do all sorts of nasty things way before anybody at the hosting company would even have a clue about what's going on. | | - Original Message - | From: Doug White [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Date: Wednesday, September 3, 2003 10:40 am | Subject: Re: CFObject in shared host? (Was: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? ) | | Probably correct, but any shared hosting provider would probably | immediatelyclose your account upon the appearance of code such as | that - All of them do | have Terms of Service and a legitimate user will comply willingly. | | == | Stop spam on your domain, use our gateway! | For hosting solutions http://www.clickdoug.com | Featuring Win2003 Enterprise, RedHat Linux, CFMX 6.1 and all | databases.ISP rated: http://www.forta.com/cf/isp/isp.cfm?isp_id=772 | Suggested corporate Anti-virus policy: | http://www.dshield.org/antivirus.pdf== | If you are not satisfied with my service, my job isn't done! | | - Original Message - | From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED] | To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 11:12 AM | Subject: Re: CFObject in shared host? (Was: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats | new for us? ) | | | | Whether cfobject is enabled or not doesn't affect the insecurity | of a | | CFMX installation for shared hosting. For example... | | | | cfscript | | badThing = CreateObject(java, a.BadThing); | | // is the same as... | | foo = ; | | clazz = foo.getClass(); | | clazz = clazz.forName(a.badThing); | | badThing = clazz.newInstance(); | | /cfscript | | | | -Matt | | | | On Wednesday, September 3, 2003, at 11:40 AM, Oliver Cookson wrote: | | | | I know this has been covered before but has there been any | solutions to | | using CFObject in a shared host without creating a security | hazard?| | | Cheers | | | | -Original Message- | | From: Ryan Kime [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | Sent: 03 September 2003 16:36 | | To: CF-Talk | | Subject: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? | | | | | | That's a $10 a month difference and they list out versions | they use. I | | see that pricing as more agreeable for both sides and I think it's | | great | | that prices are coming down. | | | | There's a threshold where you start to lose money on every new | customer| and I'm sure it's different for everyone. But I | remember Dell got into | | hosting and were offering $16.95 plans with CF. Guess how long | that| lasted? About a year. And they are a huge company, so it | makes me | | wonder | | about the smaller hosts and their ability to sustain at that | level of | | price vs. features without cutting corners. | | | | Just want to make sure people ask the right questions when | they look | | for | | hosting. I look forward to seeing that BD hosting list. | | | | -Ryan | | | | -Original Message- | | From: Massimo Foti [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 10:15 AM | | To: CF-Talk | | Subject: Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? | | | | | | There's no such thing as a free lunch | | | | I would be leery of *free* CF and SQL Server, both of those | cost a | | pretty penny and are not easy to cover without passing some | of the | | cost on to customers. It also makes me wonder why they use | the term | | FREE and not included when describing their plans. | | | | Which version of CF are they using? If it's Pro/Standard and not | | Enterprise, | | don't walk, but run away as fast as you can. | | | | Other companies offer low prices too: | | | | http://www.crystaltech.com/plan2.htm | | | | The quality is excellent, with SQL Server 2000 and CF 6.1 | Enterprise| running on Win 2003. Hosting prices keep going down, | not as fast as a | | few years ago, but they are more affordable than ever | | | | | | Massimo Foti | | Certified Dreamweaver MX Developer | | Certified Advanced ColdFusion MX Developer | | http://www.massimocorner.com
Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
Who needs cffile or cfdirectory when you can use use java.io.File? -Matt On Wednesday, September 3, 2003, at 02:12 PM, Doug White wrote: Most Shared providers disable CFFILE and CFDIRECTORY anyway == Stop spam on your domain, use our gateway! For hosting solutions http://www.clickdoug.com Featuring Win2003 Enterprise, RedHat Linux, CFMX 6.1 and all databases. ISP rated: http://www.forta.com/cf/isp/isp.cfm?isp_id=772 Suggested corporate Anti-virus policy: http://www.dshield.org/antivirus.pdf == If you are not satisfied with my service, my job isn't done! - Original Message - From: Ryan Kime [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 11:29 AM Subject: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? | I used the word free.they use the word included | | Semantics, I know, but here is the page I am referring to: | | http://www.uniserve.com/bus/usa/web/rates_glance.php?c=nt | | | Why should they use Enterprise if it's not required (i.e. clustering/load | balancing etc.). | | H...maybe to keep other people from using your database connections and | your custom tags. Plus keep the general population on the server from using | cfdirectory/cffile outside their account's root. That's enough to make me | look elsewhere. | | | -Original Message- | From: Bryan Stevenson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 11:07 AM | To: CF-Talk | Subject: Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? | | | Well Ryan they are absolutely great and in 5 years I have never had a CF | related problem that wasn't fixed within 15 minutes of it being found (and I | can count how many issues on one hand). | | I used the word free.they use the word included. | | Why would you run away if they are using Pro/Standard? Why should they | use Enterprise if it's not required (i.e. clustering/load balancing etc.). | | These guys are a national ISP and can easily absorb the cost of the | softwarethat's how. | | Cheers | | Bryan Stevenson B.Comm. | VP Director of E-Commerce Development | Electric Edge Systems Group Inc. | t. 250.920.8830 | e. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | - | Macromedia Associate Partner | www.macromedia.com | - | Vancouver Island ColdFusion Users Group | Founder Director | www.cfug-vancouverisland.com | - Original Message - | From: Ryan Kime [EMAIL PROTECTED] | To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 8:13 AM | Subject: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? | | | There's no such thing as a free lunch | | I would be leery of *free* CF and SQL Server, both of those cost a | pretty penny and are not easy to cover without passing some of the | cost on to customers. It also makes me wonder why they use the term | FREE and not included when describing their plans. | | Which version of CF are they using? If it's Pro/Standard and not | Enterprise, | don't walk, but run away as fast as you can. | | Ryan | | -Original Message- | From: Bryan Stevenson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 9:55 AM | To: CF-Talk | Subject: Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? | | | Hey All, | | Just thought I'd chime in here. | | I've seen a lot of folks mentioning BlueDragon and how it may bring | down hosting costs for CF. Well I'm not sure about the US, but CF is | starting | to | be offered for NO EXTRA CHARGE up here in Canada. | | www.uniserve.com for example (and there are others). | | NT Hosting with SQL Server 2000 and CFMX in a shared environment for | about $35 CDN/month and they rock!! I've used the company they | recently | acquired | (Axion Internet) for the past 5 years and the service only got better | after | the merger. Beleive it or not the SQL Server does not even add any | monthly | cost...just a $25 CDN setup fee!! | | So while BD may help bring other ISPs down to earth.that move is | already | happening here ;-) | | Cheers | | Bryan Stevenson B.Comm. | VP Director of E-Commerce Development | Electric Edge Systems Group Inc. | t. 250.920.8830 | e. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | - | Macromedia Associate Partner | www.macromedia.com | - | Vancouver Island ColdFusion Users Group | Founder Director | www.cfug-vancouverisland.com | - Original Message - | From: Jim Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] | To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 6:54 PM | Subject: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? | | | For me, I wouldn't at the moment just because I'm very happy where I | am
RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
People who don't know Java :) -Original Message- From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 11:22 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? Who needs cffile or cfdirectory when you can use use java.io.File? -Matt On Wednesday, September 3, 2003, at 02:12 PM, Doug White wrote: Most Shared providers disable CFFILE and CFDIRECTORY anyway == Stop spam on your domain, use our gateway! For hosting solutions http://www.clickdoug.com Featuring Win2003 Enterprise, RedHat Linux, CFMX 6.1 and all databases. ISP rated: http://www.forta.com/cf/isp/isp.cfm?isp_id=772 Suggested corporate Anti-virus policy: http://www.dshield.org/antivirus.pdf == If you are not satisfied with my service, my job isn't done! - Original Message - From: Ryan Kime [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 11:29 AM Subject: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? | I used the word free.they use the word included | | Semantics, I know, but here is the page I am referring to: | | http://www.uniserve.com/bus/usa/web/rates_glance.php?c=nt | | | Why should they use Enterprise if it's not required (i.e. clustering/load | balancing etc.). | | H...maybe to keep other people from using your database connections and | your custom tags. Plus keep the general population on the server from using | cfdirectory/cffile outside their account's root. That's enough to make me | look elsewhere. | | | -Original Message- | From: Bryan Stevenson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 11:07 AM | To: CF-Talk | Subject: Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? | | | Well Ryan they are absolutely great and in 5 years I have never had a CF | related problem that wasn't fixed within 15 minutes of it being found (and I | can count how many issues on one hand). | | I used the word free.they use the word included. | | Why would you run away if they are using Pro/Standard? Why should they | use Enterprise if it's not required (i.e. clustering/load balancing etc.). | | These guys are a national ISP and can easily absorb the cost of the | softwarethat's how. | | Cheers | | Bryan Stevenson B.Comm. | VP Director of E-Commerce Development | Electric Edge Systems Group Inc. | t. 250.920.8830 | e. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | - | Macromedia Associate Partner | www.macromedia.com | - | Vancouver Island ColdFusion Users Group | Founder Director | www.cfug-vancouverisland.com | - Original Message - | From: Ryan Kime [EMAIL PROTECTED] | To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 8:13 AM | Subject: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? | | | There's no such thing as a free lunch | | I would be leery of *free* CF and SQL Server, both of those cost a | pretty penny and are not easy to cover without passing some of the | cost on to customers. It also makes me wonder why they use the | term FREE and not included when describing their plans. | | Which version of CF are they using? If it's Pro/Standard and not | Enterprise, | don't walk, but run away as fast as you can. | | Ryan | | -Original Message- | From: Bryan Stevenson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 9:55 AM | To: CF-Talk | Subject: Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? | | | Hey All, | | Just thought I'd chime in here. | | I've seen a lot of folks mentioning BlueDragon and how it may | bring down hosting costs for CF. Well I'm not sure about the US, | but CF is | starting | to | be offered for NO EXTRA CHARGE up here in Canada. | | www.uniserve.com for example (and there are others). | | NT Hosting with SQL Server 2000 and CFMX in a shared environment for | about $35 CDN/month and they rock!! I've used the company they | recently | acquired | (Axion Internet) for the past 5 years and the service only got better | after | the merger. Beleive it or not the SQL Server does not even add | any | monthly | cost...just a $25 CDN setup fee!! | | So while BD may help bring other ISPs down to earth.that move is | already | happening here ;-) | | Cheers | | Bryan Stevenson B.Comm. | VP Director of E-Commerce Development | Electric Edge Systems Group Inc. | t. 250.920.8830 | e. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | - | Macromedia Associate Partner | www.macromedia.com | - | Vancouver Island ColdFusion Users Group | Founder Director | www.cfug-vancouverisland.com | - Original Message - | From: Jim Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED
RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
Matt, Where would one find documenation on who to use java.io.file in Coldfusion MX? Thanks, -Brad -Original Message- From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 11:22 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? Who needs cffile or cfdirectory when you can use use java.io.File? -Matt On Wednesday, September 3, 2003, at 02:12 PM, Doug White wrote: Most Shared providers disable CFFILE and CFDIRECTORY anyway == Stop spam on your domain, use our gateway! For hosting solutions http://www.clickdoug.com Featuring Win2003 Enterprise, RedHat Linux, CFMX 6.1 and all databases. ISP rated: http://www.forta.com/cf/isp/isp.cfm?isp_id=772 Suggested corporate Anti-virus policy: http://www.dshield.org/antivirus.pdf == If you are not satisfied with my service, my job isn't done! - Original Message - From: Ryan Kime [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 11:29 AM Subject: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? | I used the word free.they use the word included | | Semantics, I know, but here is the page I am referring to: | | http://www.uniserve.com/bus/usa/web/rates_glance.php?c=nt | | | Why should they use Enterprise if it's not required (i.e. clustering/load | balancing etc.). | | H...maybe to keep other people from using your database connections and | your custom tags. Plus keep the general population on the server from using | cfdirectory/cffile outside their account's root. That's enough to make me | look elsewhere. | | | -Original Message- | From: Bryan Stevenson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 11:07 AM | To: CF-Talk | Subject: Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? | | | Well Ryan they are absolutely great and in 5 years I have never had a CF | related problem that wasn't fixed within 15 minutes of it being found (and I | can count how many issues on one hand). | | I used the word free.they use the word included. | | Why would you run away if they are using Pro/Standard? Why should they | use Enterprise if it's not required (i.e. clustering/load balancing etc.). | | These guys are a national ISP and can easily absorb the cost of the | softwarethat's how. | | Cheers | | Bryan Stevenson B.Comm. | VP Director of E-Commerce Development | Electric Edge Systems Group Inc. | t. 250.920.8830 | e. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | - | Macromedia Associate Partner | www.macromedia.com | - | Vancouver Island ColdFusion Users Group | Founder Director | www.cfug-vancouverisland.com | - Original Message - | From: Ryan Kime [EMAIL PROTECTED] | To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 8:13 AM | Subject: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? | | | There's no such thing as a free lunch | | I would be leery of *free* CF and SQL Server, both of those cost a | pretty penny and are not easy to cover without passing some of the | cost on to customers. It also makes me wonder why they use the term | FREE and not included when describing their plans. | | Which version of CF are they using? If it's Pro/Standard and not | Enterprise, | don't walk, but run away as fast as you can. | | Ryan | | -Original Message- | From: Bryan Stevenson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 9:55 AM | To: CF-Talk | Subject: Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? | | | Hey All, | | Just thought I'd chime in here. | | I've seen a lot of folks mentioning BlueDragon and how it may bring | down hosting costs for CF. Well I'm not sure about the US, but CF is | starting | to | be offered for NO EXTRA CHARGE up here in Canada. | | www.uniserve.com for example (and there are others). | | NT Hosting with SQL Server 2000 and CFMX in a shared environment for | about $35 CDN/month and they rock!! I've used the company they | recently | acquired | (Axion Internet) for the past 5 years and the service only got better | after | the merger. Beleive it or not the SQL Server does not even add any | monthly | cost...just a $25 CDN setup fee!! | | So while BD may help bring other ISPs down to earth.that move is | already | happening here ;-) | | Cheers | | Bryan Stevenson B.Comm. | VP Director of E-Commerce Development | Electric Edge Systems Group Inc. | t. 250.920.8830 | e. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | - | Macromedia Associate Partner | www.macromedia.com | - | Vancouver Island ColdFusion Users Group | Founder Director | www.cfug-vancouverisland.com
Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
some of us dont know what that is matt. a lot of us dont know java maybe dont have time to learn it. a lot of us need cffile. gawd knows i do:) Who needs cffile or cfdirectory when you can use use java.io.File? -Matt On Wednesday, September 3, 2003, at 02:12 PM, Doug White wrote: Most Shared providers disable CFFILE and CFDIRECTORY anyway == Stop spam on your domain, use our gateway! For hosting solutions http://www.clickdoug.com Featuring Win2003 Enterprise, RedHat Linux, CFMX 6.1 and all databases. ISP rated: http://www.forta.com/cf/isp/isp.cfm?isp_id=772 Suggested corporate Anti-virus policy: http://www.dshield.org/antivirus.pdf == If you are not satisfied with my service, my job isn't done! - Original Message - From: Ryan Kime [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 11:29 AM Subject: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? | I used the word free.they use the word included | | Semantics, I know, but here is the page I am referring to: | | http://www.uniserve.com/bus/usa/web/rates_glance.php?c=nt | | | Why should they use Enterprise if it's not required (i.e. clustering/load | balancing etc.). | | H...maybe to keep other people from using your database connections and | your custom tags. Plus keep the general population on the server from using | cfdirectory/cffile outside their account's root. That's enough to make me | look elsewhere. | | | -Original Message- | From: Bryan Stevenson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 11:07 AM | To: CF-Talk | Subject: Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? | | | Well Ryan they are absolutely great and in 5 years I have never had a CF | related problem that wasn't fixed within 15 minutes of it being found (and I | can count how many issues on one hand). | | I used the word free.they use the word included. | | Why would you run away if they are using Pro/Standard? Why should they | use Enterprise if it's not required (i.e. clustering/load balancing etc.). | | These guys are a national ISP and can easily absorb the cost of the | softwarethat's how. | | Cheers | | Bryan Stevenson B.Comm. | VP Director of E-Commerce Development | Electric Edge Systems Group Inc. | t. 250.920.8830 | e. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | - | Macromedia Associate Partner | www.macromedia.com | - | Vancouver Island ColdFusion Users Group | Founder Director | www.cfug-vancouverisland.com | - Original Message - | From: Ryan Kime [EMAIL PROTECTED] | To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 8:13 AM | Subject: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? | | | There's no such thing as a free lunch | | I would be leery of *free* CF and SQL Server, both of those cost a | pretty penny and are not easy to cover without passing some of the | cost on to customers. It also makes me wonder why they use the term | FREE and not included when describing their plans. | | Which version of CF are they using? If it's Pro/Standard and not | Enterprise, | don't walk, but run away as fast as you can. | | Ryan | | -Original Message- | From: Bryan Stevenson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 9:55 AM | To: CF-Talk | Subject: Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? | | | Hey All, | | Just thought I'd chime in here. | | I've seen a lot of folks mentioning BlueDragon and how it may bring | down hosting costs for CF. Well I'm not sure about the US, but CF is | starting | to | be offered for NO EXTRA CHARGE up here in Canada. | | www.uniserve.com for example (and there are others). | | NT Hosting with SQL Server 2000 and CFMX in a shared environment for | about $35 CDN/month and they rock!! I've used the company they | recently | acquired | (Axion Internet) for the past 5 years and the service only got better | after | the merger. Beleive it or not the SQL Server does not even add any | monthly | cost...just a $25 CDN setup fee!! | | So while BD may help bring other ISPs down to earth.that move is | already | happening here ;-) | | Cheers | | Bryan Stevenson B.Comm. | VP Director of E-Commerce Development | Electric Edge Systems Group Inc. | t. 250.920.8830 | e. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | - | Macromedia Associate Partner | www.macromedia.com | - | Vancouver Island ColdFusion Users Group | Founder Director | www.cfug-vancouverisland.com | - Original Message - | From: Jim Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] | To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Sent: Tuesday, September 02
RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
Matt, If you do not mind me asking are there any examples of CFMX calling Java directly. I am totally new to Java, just started looking into it and I am just looking for very basic examples that I could tear part to see how it works. Thanks Mario -Original Message- From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 2:22 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? Who needs cffile or cfdirectory when you can use use java.io.File? -Matt On Wednesday, September 3, 2003, at 02:12 PM, Doug White wrote: Most Shared providers disable CFFILE and CFDIRECTORY anyway == Stop spam on your domain, use our gateway! For hosting solutions http://www.clickdoug.com Featuring Win2003 Enterprise, RedHat Linux, CFMX 6.1 and all databases. ISP rated: http://www.forta.com/cf/isp/isp.cfm?isp_id=772 Suggested corporate Anti-virus policy: http://www.dshield.org/antivirus.pdf == If you are not satisfied with my service, my job isn't done! - Original Message - From: Ryan Kime [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 11:29 AM Subject: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? | I used the word free.they use the word included | | Semantics, I know, but here is the page I am referring to: | | http://www.uniserve.com/bus/usa/web/rates_glance.php?c=nt | | | Why should they use Enterprise if it's not required (i.e. clustering/load | balancing etc.). | | H...maybe to keep other people from using your database connections and | your custom tags. Plus keep the general population on the server from using | cfdirectory/cffile outside their account's root. That's enough to make me | look elsewhere. | | | -Original Message- | From: Bryan Stevenson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 11:07 AM | To: CF-Talk | Subject: Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? | | | Well Ryan they are absolutely great and in 5 years I have never had a CF | related problem that wasn't fixed within 15 minutes of it being found (and I | can count how many issues on one hand). | | I used the word free.they use the word included. | | Why would you run away if they are using Pro/Standard? Why should they | use Enterprise if it's not required (i.e. clustering/load balancing etc.). | | These guys are a national ISP and can easily absorb the cost of the | softwarethat's how. | | Cheers | | Bryan Stevenson B.Comm. | VP Director of E-Commerce Development | Electric Edge Systems Group Inc. | t. 250.920.8830 | e. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | - | Macromedia Associate Partner | www.macromedia.com | - | Vancouver Island ColdFusion Users Group | Founder Director | www.cfug-vancouverisland.com | - Original Message - | From: Ryan Kime [EMAIL PROTECTED] | To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 8:13 AM | Subject: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? | | | There's no such thing as a free lunch | | I would be leery of *free* CF and SQL Server, both of those cost a | pretty penny and are not easy to cover without passing some of the | cost on to customers. It also makes me wonder why they use the term | FREE and not included when describing their plans. | | Which version of CF are they using? If it's Pro/Standard and not | Enterprise, | don't walk, but run away as fast as you can. | | Ryan | | -Original Message- | From: Bryan Stevenson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 9:55 AM | To: CF-Talk | Subject: Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? | | | Hey All, | | Just thought I'd chime in here. | | I've seen a lot of folks mentioning BlueDragon and how it may bring | down hosting costs for CF. Well I'm not sure about the US, but CF is | starting | to | be offered for NO EXTRA CHARGE up here in Canada. | | www.uniserve.com for example (and there are others). | | NT Hosting with SQL Server 2000 and CFMX in a shared environment for | about $35 CDN/month and they rock!! I've used the company they | recently | acquired | (Axion Internet) for the past 5 years and the service only got better | after | the merger. Beleive it or not the SQL Server does not even add any | monthly | cost...just a $25 CDN setup fee!! | | So while BD may help bring other ISPs down to earth.that move is | already | happening here ;-) | | Cheers | | Bryan Stevenson B.Comm. | VP Director of E-Commerce Development | Electric Edge Systems Group Inc. | t. 250.920.8830 | e. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | - | Macromedia Associate Partner | www.macromedia.com
Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
I don't think there is CFMX specific documentation anywhere besides random emails on the subject. However, you can find the API for java.io.File at http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.4.1/docs/api/java/io/File.html. -Matt On Wednesday, September 3, 2003, at 02:33 PM, Fetter, Brad wrote: Matt, Where would one find documenation on who to use java.io.file in Coldfusion MX? Thanks, -Brad -Original Message- From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 11:22 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? Who needs cffile or cfdirectory when you can use use java.io.File? -Matt On Wednesday, September 3, 2003, at 02:12 PM, Doug White wrote: Most Shared providers disable CFFILE and CFDIRECTORY anyway == Stop spam on your domain, use our gateway! For hosting solutions http://www.clickdoug.com Featuring Win2003 Enterprise, RedHat Linux, CFMX 6.1 and all databases. ISP rated: http://www.forta.com/cf/isp/isp.cfm?isp_id=772 Suggested corporate Anti-virus policy: http://www.dshield.org/antivirus.pdf == If you are not satisfied with my service, my job isn't done! - Original Message - From: Ryan Kime [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 11:29 AM Subject: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? | I used the word free.they use the word included | | Semantics, I know, but here is the page I am referring to: | | http://www.uniserve.com/bus/usa/web/rates_glance.php?c=nt | | | Why should they use Enterprise if it's not required (i.e. clustering/load | balancing etc.). | | H...maybe to keep other people from using your database connections and | your custom tags. Plus keep the general population on the server from using | cfdirectory/cffile outside their account's root. That's enough to make me | look elsewhere. | | | -Original Message- | From: Bryan Stevenson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 11:07 AM | To: CF-Talk | Subject: Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? | | | Well Ryan they are absolutely great and in 5 years I have never had a CF | related problem that wasn't fixed within 15 minutes of it being found (and I | can count how many issues on one hand). | | I used the word free.they use the word included. | | Why would you run away if they are using Pro/Standard? Why should they | use Enterprise if it's not required (i.e. clustering/load balancing etc.). | | These guys are a national ISP and can easily absorb the cost of the | softwarethat's how. | | Cheers | | Bryan Stevenson B.Comm. | VP Director of E-Commerce Development | Electric Edge Systems Group Inc. | t. 250.920.8830 | e. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | - | Macromedia Associate Partner | www.macromedia.com | - | Vancouver Island ColdFusion Users Group | Founder Director | www.cfug-vancouverisland.com | - Original Message - | From: Ryan Kime [EMAIL PROTECTED] | To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 8:13 AM | Subject: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? | | | There's no such thing as a free lunch | | I would be leery of *free* CF and SQL Server, both of those cost a | pretty penny and are not easy to cover without passing some of the | cost on to customers. It also makes me wonder why they use the term | FREE and not included when describing their plans. | | Which version of CF are they using? If it's Pro/Standard and not | Enterprise, | don't walk, but run away as fast as you can. | | Ryan | | -Original Message- | From: Bryan Stevenson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 9:55 AM | To: CF-Talk | Subject: Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? | | | Hey All, | | Just thought I'd chime in here. | | I've seen a lot of folks mentioning BlueDragon and how it may bring | down hosting costs for CF. Well I'm not sure about the US, but CF is | starting | to | be offered for NO EXTRA CHARGE up here in Canada. | | www.uniserve.com for example (and there are others). | | NT Hosting with SQL Server 2000 and CFMX in a shared environment for | about $35 CDN/month and they rock!! I've used the company they | recently | acquired | (Axion Internet) for the past 5 years and the service only got better | after | the merger. Beleive it or not the SQL Server does not even add any | monthly | cost...just a $25 CDN setup fee!! | | So while BD may help bring other ISPs down to earth.that move is | already | happening here ;-) | | Cheers | | Bryan Stevenson B.Comm. | VP Director of E-Commerce Development | Electric Edge Systems Group Inc. | t. 250.920.8830 | e. [EMAIL PROTECTED
Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
Sure, but we are talking about security of shared hosting here even if the subject of the email is wrong. If you are attempting to exploit a server and only know CFML; you're kinda fucked! -Matt On Wednesday, September 3, 2003, at 02:36 PM, John Wilker wrote: People who don't know Java :) -Original Message- From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 11:22 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? Who needs cffile or cfdirectory when you can use use java.io.File? -Matt On Wednesday, September 3, 2003, at 02:12 PM, Doug White wrote: Most Shared providers disable CFFILE and CFDIRECTORY anyway == Stop spam on your domain, use our gateway! For hosting solutions http://www.clickdoug.com Featuring Win2003 Enterprise, RedHat Linux, CFMX 6.1 and all databases. ISP rated: http://www.forta.com/cf/isp/isp.cfm?isp_id=772 Suggested corporate Anti-virus policy: http://www.dshield.org/antivirus.pdf == If you are not satisfied with my service, my job isn't done! - Original Message - From: Ryan Kime [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 11:29 AM Subject: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? | I used the word free.they use the word included | | Semantics, I know, but here is the page I am referring to: | | http://www.uniserve.com/bus/usa/web/rates_glance.php?c=nt | | | Why should they use Enterprise if it's not required (i.e. clustering/load | balancing etc.). | | H...maybe to keep other people from using your database connections and | your custom tags. Plus keep the general population on the server from using | cfdirectory/cffile outside their account's root. That's enough to make me | look elsewhere. | | | -Original Message- | From: Bryan Stevenson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 11:07 AM | To: CF-Talk | Subject: Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? | | | Well Ryan they are absolutely great and in 5 years I have never had a CF | related problem that wasn't fixed within 15 minutes of it being found (and I | can count how many issues on one hand). | | I used the word free.they use the word included. | | Why would you run away if they are using Pro/Standard? Why should they | use Enterprise if it's not required (i.e. clustering/load balancing etc.). | | These guys are a national ISP and can easily absorb the cost of the | softwarethat's how. | | Cheers | | Bryan Stevenson B.Comm. | VP Director of E-Commerce Development | Electric Edge Systems Group Inc. | t. 250.920.8830 | e. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | - | Macromedia Associate Partner | www.macromedia.com | - | Vancouver Island ColdFusion Users Group | Founder Director | www.cfug-vancouverisland.com | - Original Message - | From: Ryan Kime [EMAIL PROTECTED] | To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 8:13 AM | Subject: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? | | | There's no such thing as a free lunch | | I would be leery of *free* CF and SQL Server, both of those cost a | pretty penny and are not easy to cover without passing some of the | cost on to customers. It also makes me wonder why they use the | term FREE and not included when describing their plans. | | Which version of CF are they using? If it's Pro/Standard and not | Enterprise, | don't walk, but run away as fast as you can. | | Ryan | | -Original Message- | From: Bryan Stevenson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 9:55 AM | To: CF-Talk | Subject: Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? | | | Hey All, | | Just thought I'd chime in here. | | I've seen a lot of folks mentioning BlueDragon and how it may | bring down hosting costs for CF. Well I'm not sure about the US, | but CF is | starting | to | be offered for NO EXTRA CHARGE up here in Canada. | | www.uniserve.com for example (and there are others). | | NT Hosting with SQL Server 2000 and CFMX in a shared environment for | about $35 CDN/month and they rock!! I've used the company they | recently | acquired | (Axion Internet) for the past 5 years and the service only got better | after | the merger. Beleive it or not the SQL Server does not even add | any | monthly | cost...just a $25 CDN setup fee!! | | So while BD may help bring other ISPs down to earth.that move is | already | happening here ;-) | | Cheers | | Bryan Stevenson B.Comm. | VP Director of E-Commerce Development | Electric Edge Systems Group Inc. | t. 250.920.8830 | e. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | - | Macromedia Associate Partner
shared hosting security (was Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?)
Please read these emails in context of their thread. I am not suggesting that CFML developers use java.io.File instead of cffile or cfdirectory. I am suggesting that disabling cffile and cfdirectory DOES NOT SECURE YOUR SERVER. -Matt On Wednesday, September 3, 2003, at 02:39 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: some of us dont know what that is matt. a lot of us dont know java maybe dont have time to learn it. a lot of us need cffile. gawd knows i do:) Who needs cffile or cfdirectory when you can use use java.io.File? -Matt On Wednesday, September 3, 2003, at 02:12 PM, Doug White wrote: Most Shared providers disable CFFILE and CFDIRECTORY anyway == Stop spam on your domain, use our gateway! For hosting solutions http://www.clickdoug.com Featuring Win2003 Enterprise, RedHat Linux, CFMX 6.1 and all databases. ISP rated: http://www.forta.com/cf/isp/isp.cfm?isp_id=772 Suggested corporate Anti-virus policy: http://www.dshield.org/antivirus.pdf == If you are not satisfied with my service, my job isn't done! - Original Message - From: Ryan Kime [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 11:29 AM Subject: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? | I used the word free.they use the word included | | Semantics, I know, but here is the page I am referring to: | | http://www.uniserve.com/bus/usa/web/rates_glance.php?c=nt | | | Why should they use Enterprise if it's not required (i.e. clustering/load | balancing etc.). | | H...maybe to keep other people from using your database connections and | your custom tags. Plus keep the general population on the server from using | cfdirectory/cffile outside their account's root. That's enough to make me | look elsewhere. | | | -Original Message- | From: Bryan Stevenson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 11:07 AM | To: CF-Talk | Subject: Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? | | | Well Ryan they are absolutely great and in 5 years I have never had a CF | related problem that wasn't fixed within 15 minutes of it being found (and I | can count how many issues on one hand). | | I used the word free.they use the word included. | | Why would you run away if they are using Pro/Standard? Why should they | use Enterprise if it's not required (i.e. clustering/load balancing etc.). | | These guys are a national ISP and can easily absorb the cost of the | softwarethat's how. | | Cheers | | Bryan Stevenson B.Comm. | VP Director of E-Commerce Development | Electric Edge Systems Group Inc. | t. 250.920.8830 | e. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | - | Macromedia Associate Partner | www.macromedia.com | - | Vancouver Island ColdFusion Users Group | Founder Director | www.cfug-vancouverisland.com | - Original Message - | From: Ryan Kime [EMAIL PROTECTED] | To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 8:13 AM | Subject: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? | | | There's no such thing as a free lunch | | I would be leery of *free* CF and SQL Server, both of those cost a | pretty penny and are not easy to cover without passing some of the | cost on to customers. It also makes me wonder why they use the term | FREE and not included when describing their plans. | | Which version of CF are they using? If it's Pro/Standard and not | Enterprise, | don't walk, but run away as fast as you can. | | Ryan | | -Original Message- | From: Bryan Stevenson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 9:55 AM | To: CF-Talk | Subject: Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? | | | Hey All, | | Just thought I'd chime in here. | | I've seen a lot of folks mentioning BlueDragon and how it may bring | down hosting costs for CF. Well I'm not sure about the US, but CF is | starting | to | be offered for NO EXTRA CHARGE up here in Canada. | | www.uniserve.com for example (and there are others). | | NT Hosting with SQL Server 2000 and CFMX in a shared environment for | about $35 CDN/month and they rock!! I've used the company they | recently | acquired | (Axion Internet) for the past 5 years and the service only got better | after | the merger. Beleive it or not the SQL Server does not even add any | monthly | cost...just a $25 CDN setup fee!! | | So while BD may help bring other ISPs down to earth.that move is | already | happening here ;-) | | Cheers | | Bryan Stevenson B.Comm. | VP Director of E-Commerce Development | Electric Edge Systems Group Inc. | t. 250.920.8830 | e. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | - | Macromedia Associate Partner
RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
man u aint alone, its like tiger woods and his 1 iron. only 2 people can hit a 1 iron, tiger woods and god. learning and using java and cf developers is quite the leap, most (if not a very high percentage) probably don't. tony weeg sr. web applications architect navtrak, inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.navtrak.net office 410.548.2337 fax 410.860.2337 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 2:40 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? some of us dont know what that is matt. a lot of us dont know java maybe dont have time to learn it. a lot of us need cffile. gawd knows i do:) Who needs cffile or cfdirectory when you can use use java.io.File? -Matt On Wednesday, September 3, 2003, at 02:12 PM, Doug White wrote: Most Shared providers disable CFFILE and CFDIRECTORY anyway == Stop spam on your domain, use our gateway! For hosting solutions http://www.clickdoug.com Featuring Win2003 Enterprise, RedHat Linux, CFMX 6.1 and all databases. ISP rated: http://www.forta.com/cf/isp/isp.cfm?isp_id=772 Suggested corporate Anti-virus policy: http://www.dshield.org/antivirus.pdf == If you are not satisfied with my service, my job isn't done! - Original Message - From: Ryan Kime [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 11:29 AM Subject: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? | I used the word free.they use the word included | | Semantics, I know, but here is the page I am referring to: | | http://www.uniserve.com/bus/usa/web/rates_glance.php?c=nt | | | Why should they use Enterprise if it's not required (i.e. clustering/load | balancing etc.). | | H...maybe to keep other people from using your database connections and | your custom tags. Plus keep the general population on the server from using | cfdirectory/cffile outside their account's root. That's enough to make me | look elsewhere. | | | -Original Message- | From: Bryan Stevenson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 11:07 AM | To: CF-Talk | Subject: Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? | | | Well Ryan they are absolutely great and in 5 years I have never had a CF | related problem that wasn't fixed within 15 minutes of it being found (and I | can count how many issues on one hand). | | I used the word free.they use the word included. | | Why would you run away if they are using Pro/Standard? Why | should they | use Enterprise if it's not required (i.e. clustering/load balancing etc.). | | These guys are a national ISP and can easily absorb the cost of the | softwarethat's how. | | Cheers | | Bryan Stevenson B.Comm. | VP Director of E-Commerce Development | Electric Edge Systems Group Inc. | t. 250.920.8830 | e. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | - | Macromedia Associate Partner | www.macromedia.com | - | Vancouver Island ColdFusion Users Group | Founder Director | www.cfug-vancouverisland.com | - Original Message - | From: Ryan Kime [EMAIL PROTECTED] | To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 8:13 AM | Subject: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? | | | There's no such thing as a free lunch | | I would be leery of *free* CF and SQL Server, both of those cost | a pretty penny and are not easy to cover without passing some of | the cost on to customers. It also makes me wonder why they use | the term | FREE and not included when describing their plans. | | Which version of CF are they using? If it's Pro/Standard and not | | Enterprise, | don't walk, but run away as fast as you can. | | Ryan | | -Original Message- | From: Bryan Stevenson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 9:55 AM | To: CF-Talk | Subject: Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? | | | Hey All, | | Just thought I'd chime in here. | | I've seen a lot of folks mentioning BlueDragon and how it may bring | down hosting costs for CF. Well I'm not sure about the US, but CF is | starting | to | be offered for NO EXTRA CHARGE up here in Canada. | | www.uniserve.com for example (and there are others). | | NT Hosting with SQL Server 2000 and CFMX in a shared environment for | about $35 CDN/month and they rock!! I've used the company they | recently | acquired | (Axion Internet) for the past 5 years and the service only got better | after | the merger. Beleive it or not the SQL Server does not even add any | monthly | cost...just a $25 CDN setup fee!! | | So while BD may help bring other ISPs down to earth.that move is | already | happening here ;-) | | Cheers | | Bryan Stevenson
Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
There is a simple java.io.filereader example in the advanced book from Forta... -- jon mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Wednesday, September 3, 2003, 2:33:50 PM, you wrote: FB Matt, FB Where would one find documenation on who to use java.io.file in Coldfusion MX? FB Thanks, FB -Brad FB -Original Message- FB From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] FB Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 11:22 AM FB To: CF-Talk FB Subject: Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? FB Who needs cffile or cfdirectory when you can use use java.io.File? FB -Matt FB On Wednesday, September 3, 2003, at 02:12 PM, Doug White wrote: Most Shared providers disable CFFILE and CFDIRECTORY anyway == Stop spam on your domain, use our gateway! For hosting solutions http://www.clickdoug.com Featuring Win2003 Enterprise, RedHat Linux, CFMX 6.1 and all databases. ISP rated: http://www.forta.com/cf/isp/isp.cfm?isp_id=772 Suggested corporate Anti-virus policy: http://www.dshield.org/antivirus.pdf == If you are not satisfied with my service, my job isn't done! - Original Message - From: Ryan Kime [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 11:29 AM Subject: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? | I used the word free.they use the word included | | Semantics, I know, but here is the page I am referring to: | | http://www.uniserve.com/bus/usa/web/rates_glance.php?c=nt | | | Why should they use Enterprise if it's not required (i.e. clustering/load | balancing etc.). | | H...maybe to keep other people from using your database connections and | your custom tags. Plus keep the general population on the server from using | cfdirectory/cffile outside their account's root. That's enough to make me | look elsewhere. | | | -Original Message- | From: Bryan Stevenson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 11:07 AM | To: CF-Talk | Subject: Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? | | | Well Ryan they are absolutely great and in 5 years I have never had a CF | related problem that wasn't fixed within 15 minutes of it being found (and I | can count how many issues on one hand). | | I used the word free.they use the word included. | | Why would you run away if they are using Pro/Standard? Why should they | use Enterprise if it's not required (i.e. clustering/load balancing etc.). | | These guys are a national ISP and can easily absorb the cost of the | softwarethat's how. | | Cheers | | Bryan Stevenson B.Comm. | VP Director of E-Commerce Development | Electric Edge Systems Group Inc. | t. 250.920.8830 | e. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | - | Macromedia Associate Partner | www.macromedia.com | - | Vancouver Island ColdFusion Users Group | Founder Director | www.cfug-vancouverisland.com | - Original Message - | From: Ryan Kime [EMAIL PROTECTED] | To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 8:13 AM | Subject: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? | | | There's no such thing as a free lunch | | I would be leery of *free* CF and SQL Server, both of those cost a | pretty penny and are not easy to cover without passing some of the | cost on to customers. It also makes me wonder why they use the term | FREE and not included when describing their plans. | | Which version of CF are they using? If it's Pro/Standard and not | Enterprise, | don't walk, but run away as fast as you can. | | Ryan | | -Original Message- | From: Bryan Stevenson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 9:55 AM | To: CF-Talk | Subject: Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? | | | Hey All, | | Just thought I'd chime in here. | | I've seen a lot of folks mentioning BlueDragon and how it may bring | down hosting costs for CF. Well I'm not sure about the US, but CF is | starting | to | be offered for NO EXTRA CHARGE up here in Canada. | | www.uniserve.com for example (and there are others). | | NT Hosting with SQL Server 2000 and CFMX in a shared environment for | about $35 CDN/month and they rock!! I've used the company they | recently | acquired | (Axion Internet) for the past 5 years and the service only got better | after | the merger. Beleive it or not the SQL Server does not even add any | monthly | cost...just a $25 CDN setup fee!! | | So while BD may help bring other ISPs down to earth.that move is | already | happening here ;-) | | Cheers | | Bryan Stevenson B.Comm. | VP Director of E-Commerce Development | Electric Edge Systems Group Inc. | t. 250.920.8830 | e. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | - | Macromedia Associate
java.io.File example (was Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?)
Below is an example of using java.io.File off the top of my head. cfscript dir = CreateObject(java, some directory path here); files = dir.list(); for(itr = 1; itr lte ArrayLen(files); itr = itr + 1) WriteOutput(files[itr] br); /cfscript The above will list all the file names in a provided directory. -Matt On Wednesday, September 3, 2003, at 02:45 PM, Matt Liotta wrote: I don't think there is CFMX specific documentation anywhere besides random emails on the subject. However, you can find the API for java.io.File at http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.4.1/docs/api/java/io/File.html. -Matt On Wednesday, September 3, 2003, at 02:33 PM, Fetter, Brad wrote: Matt, Where would one find documenation on who to use java.io.file in Coldfusion MX? Thanks, -Brad -Original Message- From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 11:22 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? Who needs cffile or cfdirectory when you can use use java.io.File? -Matt On Wednesday, September 3, 2003, at 02:12 PM, Doug White wrote: Most Shared providers disable CFFILE and CFDIRECTORY anyway == Stop spam on your domain, use our gateway! For hosting solutions http://www.clickdoug.com Featuring Win2003 Enterprise, RedHat Linux, CFMX 6.1 and all databases. ISP rated: http://www.forta.com/cf/isp/isp.cfm?isp_id=772 Suggested corporate Anti-virus policy: http://www.dshield.org/antivirus.pdf == If you are not satisfied with my service, my job isn't done! - Original Message - From: Ryan Kime [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 11:29 AM Subject: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? | I used the word free.they use the word included | | Semantics, I know, but here is the page I am referring to: | | http://www.uniserve.com/bus/usa/web/rates_glance.php?c=nt | | | Why should they use Enterprise if it's not required (i.e. clustering/load | balancing etc.). | | H...maybe to keep other people from using your database connections and | your custom tags. Plus keep the general population on the server from using | cfdirectory/cffile outside their account's root. That's enough to make me | look elsewhere. | | | -Original Message- | From: Bryan Stevenson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 11:07 AM | To: CF-Talk | Subject: Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? | | | Well Ryan they are absolutely great and in 5 years I have never had a CF | related problem that wasn't fixed within 15 minutes of it being found (and I | can count how many issues on one hand). | | I used the word free.they use the word included. | | Why would you run away if they are using Pro/Standard? Why should they | use Enterprise if it's not required (i.e. clustering/load balancing etc.). | | These guys are a national ISP and can easily absorb the cost of the | softwarethat's how. | | Cheers | | Bryan Stevenson B.Comm. | VP Director of E-Commerce Development | Electric Edge Systems Group Inc. | t. 250.920.8830 | e. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | - | Macromedia Associate Partner | www.macromedia.com | - | Vancouver Island ColdFusion Users Group | Founder Director | www.cfug-vancouverisland.com | - Original Message - | From: Ryan Kime [EMAIL PROTECTED] | To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 8:13 AM | Subject: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? | | | There's no such thing as a free lunch | | I would be leery of *free* CF and SQL Server, both of those cost a | pretty penny and are not easy to cover without passing some of the | cost on to customers. It also makes me wonder why they use the term | FREE and not included when describing their plans. | | Which version of CF are they using? If it's Pro/Standard and not | Enterprise, | don't walk, but run away as fast as you can. | | Ryan | | -Original Message- | From: Bryan Stevenson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 9:55 AM | To: CF-Talk | Subject: Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? | | | Hey All, | | Just thought I'd chime in here. | | I've seen a lot of folks mentioning BlueDragon and how it may bring | down hosting costs for CF. Well I'm not sure about the US, but CF is | starting | to | be offered for NO EXTRA CHARGE up here in Canada. | | www.uniserve.com for example (and there are others). | | NT Hosting with SQL Server 2000 and CFMX in a shared environment for | about $35 CDN/month and they rock!! I've used the company they | recently | acquired | (Axion Internet) for the past 5 years and the service only got
Re: shared hosting security (was Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?)
Matt are you my brother? not only do you look like me but you have my temper as well, lol i read the mail as you put it Who needs cffile or cfdirectory when you can use use java.io.File? nothing in that to me suggested disabling cffile and cfdirectory DOES NOT SECURE YOUR SERVER. although I could have missed a few threads as I seem to get many threads way after the fact if at all. sometimes I get the answers before the ?'s, kinda odd Please read these emails in context of their thread. I am not suggesting that CFML developers use java.io.File instead of cffile or cfdirectory. I am suggesting that disabling cffile and cfdirectory DOES NOT SECURE YOUR SERVER. -Matt On Wednesday, September 3, 2003, at 02:39 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: some of us dont know what that is matt. a lot of us dont know java maybe dont have time to learn it. a lot of us need cffile. gawd knows i do:) Who needs cffile or cfdirectory when you can use use java.io.File? -Matt On Wednesday, September 3, 2003, at 02:12 PM, Doug White wrote: Most Shared providers disable CFFILE and CFDIRECTORY anyway == Stop spam on your domain, use our gateway! For hosting solutions http://www.clickdoug.com Featuring Win2003 Enterprise, RedHat Linux, CFMX 6.1 and all databases. ISP rated: http://www.forta.com/cf/isp/isp.cfm?isp_id=772 Suggested corporate Anti-virus policy: http://www.dshield.org/antivirus.pdf == If you are not satisfied with my service, my job isn't done! - Original Message - From: Ryan Kime [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 11:29 AM Subject: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? | I used the word free.they use the word included | | Semantics, I know, but here is the page I am referring to: | | http://www.uniserve.com/bus/usa/web/rates_glance.php?c=nt | | | Why should they use Enterprise if it's not required (i.e. clustering/load | balancing etc.). | | H...maybe to keep other people from using your database connections and | your custom tags. Plus keep the general population on the server from using | cfdirectory/cffile outside their account's root. That's enough to make me | look elsewhere. | | | -Original Message- | From: Bryan Stevenson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 11:07 AM | To: CF-Talk | Subject: Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? | | | Well Ryan they are absolutely great and in 5 years I have never had a CF | related problem that wasn't fixed within 15 minutes of it being found (and I | can count how many issues on one hand). | | I used the word free.they use the word included. | | Why would you run away if they are using Pro/Standard? Why should they | use Enterprise if it's not required (i.e. clustering/load balancing etc.). | | These guys are a national ISP and can easily absorb the cost of the | softwarethat's how. | | Cheers | | Bryan Stevenson B.Comm. | VP Director of E-Commerce Development | Electric Edge Systems Group Inc. | t. 250.920.8830 | e. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | - | Macromedia Associate Partner | www.macromedia.com | - | Vancouver Island ColdFusion Users Group | Founder Director | www.cfug-vancouverisland.com | - Original Message - | From: Ryan Kime [EMAIL PROTECTED] | To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 8:13 AM | Subject: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? | | | There's no such thing as a free lunch | | I would be leery of *free* CF and SQL Server, both of those cost a | pretty penny and are not easy to cover without passing some of the | cost on to customers. It also makes me wonder why they use the term | FREE and not included when describing their plans. | | Which version of CF are they using? If it's Pro/Standard and not | Enterprise, | don't walk, but run away as fast as you can. | | Ryan | | -Original Message- | From: Bryan Stevenson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 9:55 AM | To: CF-Talk | Subject: Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? | | | Hey All, | | Just thought I'd chime in here. | | I've seen a lot of folks mentioning BlueDragon and how it may bring | down hosting costs for CF. Well I'm not sure about the US, but CF is | starting | to | be offered for NO EXTRA CHARGE up here in Canada. | | www.uniserve.com for example (and there are others). | | NT Hosting with SQL Server 2000 and CFMX in a shared environment for | about $35 CDN/month and they rock!! I've used the company they | recently | acquired | (Axion Internet) for the past 5 years and the service only got better | after | the merger. Beleive it or not the SQL Server does
RE: CFObject in shared host? (Was: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? )
File system access is not required for there to be a vulnerability. You can do things like grab sessions from other applications running on the same server and modify the sessions. Anyone running an e-commerce app on a shared host and using session variables is suceptible to tampering by someone else on the same server. http://tech.badpen.com/index.cfm?mode=entryentry=4 http://tech.badpen.com/index.cfm?mode=entryentry=3 http://www.rewindlife.com/archives/46.cfm CFMX4J2EE can protect against this using separate CF instances, but that's not usually offered by hosts. Sam -- Blog: http://www.rewindlife.com Chart: http://www.blinex.com/products/charting -- ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm
Re: shared hosting security (was Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?)
Read the rest of the thread leading up to it. If you still can't understand why I was referring to security, then I will submit out of shear frustration. -Matt On Wednesday, September 3, 2003, at 03:19 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Matt are you my brother? not only do you look like me but you have my temper as well, lol i read the mail as you put it Who needs cffile or cfdirectory when you can use use java.io.File? nothing in that to me suggested disabling cffile and cfdirectory DOES NOT SECURE YOUR SERVER. although I could have missed a few threads as I seem to get many threads way after the fact if at all. sometimes I get the answers before the ?'s, kinda odd Please read these emails in context of their thread. I am not suggesting that CFML developers use java.io.File instead of cffile or cfdirectory. I am suggesting that disabling cffile and cfdirectory DOES NOT SECURE YOUR SERVER. -Matt On Wednesday, September 3, 2003, at 02:39 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: some of us dont know what that is matt. a lot of us dont know java maybe dont have time to learn it. a lot of us need cffile. gawd knows i do:) Who needs cffile or cfdirectory when you can use use java.io.File? -Matt On Wednesday, September 3, 2003, at 02:12 PM, Doug White wrote: Most Shared providers disable CFFILE and CFDIRECTORY anyway == Stop spam on your domain, use our gateway! For hosting solutions http://www.clickdoug.com Featuring Win2003 Enterprise, RedHat Linux, CFMX 6.1 and all databases. ISP rated: http://www.forta.com/cf/isp/isp.cfm?isp_id=772 Suggested corporate Anti-virus policy: http://www.dshield.org/antivirus.pdf == If you are not satisfied with my service, my job isn't done! - Original Message - From: Ryan Kime [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 11:29 AM Subject: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? | I used the word free.they use the word included | | Semantics, I know, but here is the page I am referring to: | | http://www.uniserve.com/bus/usa/web/rates_glance.php?c=nt | | | Why should they use Enterprise if it's not required (i.e. clustering/load | balancing etc.). | | H...maybe to keep other people from using your database connections and | your custom tags. Plus keep the general population on the server from using | cfdirectory/cffile outside their account's root. That's enough to make me | look elsewhere. | | | -Original Message- | From: Bryan Stevenson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 11:07 AM | To: CF-Talk | Subject: Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? | | | Well Ryan they are absolutely great and in 5 years I have never had a CF | related problem that wasn't fixed within 15 minutes of it being found (and I | can count how many issues on one hand). | | I used the word free.they use the word included. | | Why would you run away if they are using Pro/Standard? Why should they | use Enterprise if it's not required (i.e. clustering/load balancing etc.). | | These guys are a national ISP and can easily absorb the cost of the | softwarethat's how. | | Cheers | | Bryan Stevenson B.Comm. | VP Director of E-Commerce Development | Electric Edge Systems Group Inc. | t. 250.920.8830 | e. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | - | Macromedia Associate Partner | www.macromedia.com | - | Vancouver Island ColdFusion Users Group | Founder Director | www.cfug-vancouverisland.com | - Original Message - | From: Ryan Kime [EMAIL PROTECTED] | To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 8:13 AM | Subject: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? | | | There's no such thing as a free lunch | | I would be leery of *free* CF and SQL Server, both of those cost a | pretty penny and are not easy to cover without passing some of the | cost on to customers. It also makes me wonder why they use the term | FREE and not included when describing their plans. | | Which version of CF are they using? If it's Pro/Standard and not | Enterprise, | don't walk, but run away as fast as you can. | | Ryan | | -Original Message- | From: Bryan Stevenson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 9:55 AM | To: CF-Talk | Subject: Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? | | | Hey All, | | Just thought I'd chime in here. | | I've seen a lot of folks mentioning BlueDragon and how it may bring | down hosting costs for CF. Well I'm not sure about the US, but CF is | starting | to | be offered for NO EXTRA CHARGE up here in Canada. | | www.uniserve.com for example (and there are others). | | NT Hosting with SQL Server 2000 and CFMX
Re: shared hosting security (was Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?)
lol by all means please humor me btw~ please read all my message as well i cant read it if it aint there Read the rest of the thread leading up to it. If you still can't understand why I was referring to security, then I will submit out of shear frustration. -Matt On Wednesday, September 3, 2003, at 03:19 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Matt are you my brother? not only do you look like me but you have my temper as well, lol i read the mail as you put it Who needs cffile or cfdirectory when you can use use java.io.File? nothing in that to me suggested disabling cffile and cfdirectory DOES NOT SECURE YOUR SERVER. although I could have missed a few threads as I seem to get many threads way after the fact if at all. sometimes I get the answers before the ?'s, kinda odd Please read these emails in context of their thread. I am not suggesting that CFML developers use java.io.File instead of cffile or cfdirectory. I am suggesting that disabling cffile and cfdirectory DOES NOT SECURE YOUR SERVER. -Matt On Wednesday, September 3, 2003, at 02:39 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: some of us dont know what that is matt. a lot of us dont know java maybe dont have time to learn it. a lot of us need cffile. gawd knows i do:) Who needs cffile or cfdirectory when you can use use java.io.File? -Matt On Wednesday, September 3, 2003, at 02:12 PM, Doug White wrote: Most Shared providers disable CFFILE and CFDIRECTORY anyway == Stop spam on your domain, use our gateway! For hosting solutions http://www.clickdoug.com Featuring Win2003 Enterprise, RedHat Linux, CFMX 6.1 and all databases. ISP rated: http://www.forta.com/cf/isp/isp.cfm?isp_id=772 Suggested corporate Anti-virus policy: http://www.dshield.org/antivirus.pdf == If you are not satisfied with my service, my job isn't done! - Original Message - From: Ryan Kime [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 11:29 AM Subject: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? | I used the word free.they use the word included | | Semantics, I know, but here is the page I am referring to: | | http://www.uniserve.com/bus/usa/web/rates_glance.php?c=nt | | | Why should they use Enterprise if it's not required (i.e. clustering/load | balancing etc.). | | H...maybe to keep other people from using your database connections and | your custom tags. Plus keep the general population on the server from using | cfdirectory/cffile outside their account's root. That's enough to make me | look elsewhere. | | | -Original Message- | From: Bryan Stevenson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 11:07 AM | To: CF-Talk | Subject: Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? | | | Well Ryan they are absolutely great and in 5 years I have never had a CF | related problem that wasn't fixed within 15 minutes of it being found (and I | can count how many issues on one hand). | | I used the word free.they use the word included. | | Why would you run away if they are using Pro/Standard? Why should they | use Enterprise if it's not required (i.e. clustering/load balancing etc.). | | These guys are a national ISP and can easily absorb the cost of the | softwarethat's how. | | Cheers | | Bryan Stevenson B.Comm. | VP Director of E-Commerce Development | Electric Edge Systems Group Inc. | t. 250.920.8830 | e. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | - | Macromedia Associate Partner | www.macromedia.com | - | Vancouver Island ColdFusion Users Group | Founder Director | www.cfug-vancouverisland.com | - Original Message - | From: Ryan Kime [EMAIL PROTECTED] | To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 8:13 AM | Subject: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? | | | There's no such thing as a free lunch | | I would be leery of *free* CF and SQL Server, both of those cost a | pretty penny and are not easy to cover without passing some of the | cost on to customers. It also makes me wonder why they use the term | FREE and not included when describing their plans. | | Which version of CF are they using? If it's Pro/Standard and not | Enterprise, | don't walk, but run away as fast as you can. | | Ryan | | -Original Message- | From: Bryan Stevenson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 9:55 AM | To: CF-Talk | Subject: Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? | | | Hey All, | | Just thought I'd chime in here. | | I've seen a lot of folks mentioning BlueDragon and how it may bring | down hosting costs for CF. Well I'm not sure about the US, but CF is | starting | to | be offered for NO EXTRA CHARGE up here in Canada
Re: shared hosting security (was Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: btw~ please read all my message as well i cant read it if it aint there I think he did, and it showed the messages were there. You just have to scroll down in your own message, you have quoted the entire thread. Or use the archive. Jochem ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm
RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
I don't need to stand up for MACR, they can do it themselves, but I have to ask, what do you mean you can't afford CF? You can't afford the free developers edition? If your client can't afford CF, then, as you say, most likely they are 'small guys' - have you considered one of the many CF ISPs? I used Media3 for years and they were quite affordable. === Raymond Camden, ColdFusion Jedi Master for Mindseye, Inc (www.mindseye.com) Member of Team Macromedia (http://www.macromedia.com/go/teammacromedia) Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Blog : www.camdenfamily.com/morpheus/blog Yahoo IM : morpheus My ally is the Force, and a powerful ally it is. - Yoda -Original Message- From: Matt Blatchley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, September 01, 2003 8:32 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? Well, since I can't afford anything MM produces legally, I'm going to have to get BlueDragon next time I get paid. MM just lost another sale, no big loss, but I'm sure the small guys add up too. -Matt ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in ColdFusion and related topics. http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.cfm
Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
Shared hosting doesn't help cost issues when the application is destined for an Intranet since by definition the application needs to be hosted internally. -Matt On Tuesday, September 2, 2003, at 12:01 AM, Raymond Camden wrote: I don't need to stand up for MACR, they can do it themselves, but I have to ask, what do you mean you can't afford CF? You can't afford the free developers edition? If your client can't afford CF, then, as you say, most likely they are 'small guys' - have you considered one of the many CF ISPs? I used Media3 for years and they were quite affordable. === = === Raymond Camden, ColdFusion Jedi Master for Mindseye, Inc (www.mindseye.com) Member of Team Macromedia (http://www.macromedia.com/go/teammacromedia) Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Blog : www.camdenfamily.com/morpheus/blog Yahoo IM : morpheus My ally is the Force, and a powerful ally it is. - Yoda -Original Message- From: Matt Blatchley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, September 01, 2003 8:32 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? Well, since I can't afford anything MM produces legally, I'm going to have to get BlueDragon next time I get paid. MM just lost another sale, no big loss, but I'm sure the small guys add up too. -Matt ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for dependable ColdFusion Hosting. http://www.cfhosting.com
RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
One major consideration re Blue Dragon, they still do not support all CF Tags. To be fair they are trying to get there but I am concerned that we could get a Smalltalk situation with CFML, a great language side lined by minor but relevant version-vendor differences. Kind Regards - Mike Brunt Webapper Services LLC Web Site http://www.webapper.com Blog http://www.webapper.net Webapper Web Application Specialists -Original Message- From: Raymond Camden [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, September 01, 2003 9:02 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? I don't need to stand up for MACR, they can do it themselves, but I have to ask, what do you mean you can't afford CF? You can't afford the free developers edition? If your client can't afford CF, then, as you say, most likely they are 'small guys' - have you considered one of the many CF ISPs? I used Media3 for years and they were quite affordable. === Raymond Camden, ColdFusion Jedi Master for Mindseye, Inc (www.mindseye.com) Member of Team Macromedia (http://www.macromedia.com/go/teammacromedia) Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Blog : www.camdenfamily.com/morpheus/blog Yahoo IM : morpheus My ally is the Force, and a powerful ally it is. - Yoda -Original Message- From: Matt Blatchley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, September 01, 2003 8:32 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? Well, since I can't afford anything MM produces legally, I'm going to have to get BlueDragon next time I get paid. MM just lost another sale, no big loss, but I'm sure the small guys add up too. -Matt ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in ColdFusion and related topics. http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.cfm
Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
That is certainly a valid criticism. Although, New Atlanta has stated many times that they aren't trying to compete with Macromedia for customers, but go after customers that Macromedia is about to lose because of platform standardization. In that regard, they don't need to support CFMX tags since their customers only want pre-CFMX CFML applications to work. Obviously, if they want to target CFML developers at large then they are going to need to be compatible with CFMX. -Matt On Tuesday, September 2, 2003, at 01:10 AM, Mike Brunt wrote: One major consideration re Blue Dragon, they still do not support all CF Tags. To be fair they are trying to get there but I am concerned that we could get a Smalltalk situation with CFML, a great language side lined by minor but relevant version-vendor differences. Kind Regards - Mike Brunt Webapper Services LLC Web Site http://www.webapper.com Blog http://www.webapper.net Webapper Web Application Specialists -Original Message- From: Raymond Camden [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, September 01, 2003 9:02 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? I don't need to stand up for MACR, they can do it themselves, but I have to ask, what do you mean you can't afford CF? You can't afford the free developers edition? If your client can't afford CF, then, as you say, most likely they are 'small guys' - have you considered one of the many CF ISPs? I used Media3 for years and they were quite affordable. === = === Raymond Camden, ColdFusion Jedi Master for Mindseye, Inc (www.mindseye.com) Member of Team Macromedia (http://www.macromedia.com/go/teammacromedia) Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Blog : www.camdenfamily.com/morpheus/blog Yahoo IM : morpheus My ally is the Force, and a powerful ally it is. - Yoda -Original Message- From: Matt Blatchley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, September 01, 2003 8:32 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? Well, since I can't afford anything MM produces legally, I'm going to have to get BlueDragon next time I get paid. MM just lost another sale, no big loss, but I'm sure the small guys add up too. -Matt ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com
RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
Your definition may not be so cut and dry. If your clients are small enough where the cost of CF is prohibitive it may be likely that the cost of managing an Intranet is also prohibitive (although they may be doing it anyway and have never done a cost analysis). Many hosting companies are hosting their Intranet at public hosts for this reason. There are some hosts that do nothing but traditional Intranet applications along with email (Exchange hosting, for example, is pretty common due to the cost and complexity of managing an Exchange server). Also, the Intranet is generally one place where you must, as a matter of course, amortize the cost of infrastructure over several projects. A public web application may factor in architecture/hosting costs as part of the project: it's likely that those resources will be dedicated to that project. With an Intranet however it's much more likely that those resources will be leveraged for many projects (billing, defect tracking, internal messaging, time/resource management, etc). This is where CF truly shines because ALL of these projects will see development speed and quality increase. With a single application it can become more difficult to factor the cost of the server. For example let's say I'm bidding on a project. It needs a server and I want to use CF Pro ($1,200). If my hourly rate were $100/hour I would have to predict that I'm able to do the job in 12 hours less time than if I want to make the case that CF is not more expensive. No, consider an Intranet with is planned to contain, let's say, six distinct applications (not at all uncommon). My case now is that each of these applications only has to save two hours of development time due to CF for it to be just as cost effective as a free solution. Of course this is very simplistic and your hourly rate will vary, but remember that it's almost always lower than the real cost. Even if you, as a developer-under-contract only charge $50/hour the project cost may easily be $100/per or much more due once you add in meetings, testing, resource usage (rooms, consumables, etc). For all but the smallest projects (or those where there already exists infrastructure and talent in another tool) the cost of CF is easily absorbed into the project plan with no adverse impact on completion costs. But the key is that you do HAVE to work this out: full business cost and return on investment over the predicted lifespan of the project/infrastructure. Too many companies are penny-wise, pound-foolish when it comes to this stuff (saving $1200 on software to spend an extra $5000 in development is a really common occurrence among small businesses). There's often nothing that we, as consultants can do, but we should at least be comfortable that we've done all we can to explain the realities of development. Jim Davis -Original Message- From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 12:56 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? Shared hosting doesn't help cost issues when the application is destined for an Intranet since by definition the application needs to be hosted internally. -Matt On Tuesday, September 2, 2003, at 12:01 AM, Raymond Camden wrote: I don't need to stand up for MACR, they can do it themselves, but I have to ask, what do you mean you can't afford CF? You can't afford the free developers edition? If your client can't afford CF, then, as you say, most likely they are 'small guys' - have you considered one of the many CF ISPs? I used Media3 for years and they were quite affordable. === = === Raymond Camden, ColdFusion Jedi Master for Mindseye, Inc (www.mindseye.com) Member of Team Macromedia (http://www.macromedia.com/go/teammacromedia) Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Blog : www.camdenfamily.com/morpheus/blog Yahoo IM : morpheus My ally is the Force, and a powerful ally it is. - Yoda -Original Message- From: Matt Blatchley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, September 01, 2003 8:32 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? Well, since I can't afford anything MM produces legally, I'm going to have to get BlueDragon next time I get paid. MM just lost another sale, no big loss, but I'm sure the small guys add up too. -Matt ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for dependable ColdFusion Hosting. http://www.cfhosting.com
RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
Matt, good points. I just got back from the 2003 Fusebox conference in Las Vegas. Charlie Areheart (whom I have infinite respect for) was presenting for Blue Dragon and emphasized their goals to bring Blue Dragon into offering the same facilities/tags as CFMX. I hope this really turns out to be a good thing for CF. Kind Regards - Mike Brunt Webapper Services LLC Web Site http://www.webapper.com Blog http://www.webapper.net Webapper Web Application Specialists -Original Message- From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, September 01, 2003 10:37 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? That is certainly a valid criticism. Although, New Atlanta has stated many times that they aren't trying to compete with Macromedia for customers, but go after customers that Macromedia is about to lose because of platform standardization. In that regard, they don't need to support CFMX tags since their customers only want pre-CFMX CFML applications to work. Obviously, if they want to target CFML developers at large then they are going to need to be compatible with CFMX. -Matt On Tuesday, September 2, 2003, at 01:10 AM, Mike Brunt wrote: One major consideration re Blue Dragon, they still do not support all CF Tags. To be fair they are trying to get there but I am concerned that we could get a Smalltalk situation with CFML, a great language side lined by minor but relevant version-vendor differences. Kind Regards - Mike Brunt Webapper Services LLC Web Site http://www.webapper.com Blog http://www.webapper.net Webapper Web Application Specialists -Original Message- From: Raymond Camden [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, September 01, 2003 9:02 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? I don't need to stand up for MACR, they can do it themselves, but I have to ask, what do you mean you can't afford CF? You can't afford the free developers edition? If your client can't afford CF, then, as you say, most likely they are 'small guys' - have you considered one of the many CF ISPs? I used Media3 for years and they were quite affordable. === = === Raymond Camden, ColdFusion Jedi Master for Mindseye, Inc (www.mindseye.com) Member of Team Macromedia (http://www.macromedia.com/go/teammacromedia) Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Blog : www.camdenfamily.com/morpheus/blog Yahoo IM : morpheus My ally is the Force, and a powerful ally it is. - Yoda -Original Message- From: Matt Blatchley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, September 01, 2003 8:32 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? Well, since I can't afford anything MM produces legally, I'm going to have to get BlueDragon next time I get paid. MM just lost another sale, no big loss, but I'm sure the small guys add up too. -Matt ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in ColdFusion and related topics. http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.cfm
RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
Good detailed points Jim, thanks. Kind Regards - Mike Brunt Webapper Services LLC Web Site http://www.webapper.com Blog http://www.webapper.net Webapper Web Application Specialists -Original Message- From: Jim Davis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, September 01, 2003 10:51 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? Your definition may not be so cut and dry. If your clients are small enough where the cost of CF is prohibitive it may be likely that the cost of managing an Intranet is also prohibitive (although they may be doing it anyway and have never done a cost analysis). Many hosting companies are hosting their Intranet at public hosts for this reason. There are some hosts that do nothing but traditional Intranet applications along with email (Exchange hosting, for example, is pretty common due to the cost and complexity of managing an Exchange server). Also, the Intranet is generally one place where you must, as a matter of course, amortize the cost of infrastructure over several projects. A public web application may factor in architecture/hosting costs as part of the project: it's likely that those resources will be dedicated to that project. With an Intranet however it's much more likely that those resources will be leveraged for many projects (billing, defect tracking, internal messaging, time/resource management, etc). This is where CF truly shines because ALL of these projects will see development speed and quality increase. With a single application it can become more difficult to factor the cost of the server. For example let's say I'm bidding on a project. It needs a server and I want to use CF Pro ($1,200). If my hourly rate were $100/hour I would have to predict that I'm able to do the job in 12 hours less time than if I want to make the case that CF is not more expensive. No, consider an Intranet with is planned to contain, let's say, six distinct applications (not at all uncommon). My case now is that each of these applications only has to save two hours of development time due to CF for it to be just as cost effective as a free solution. Of course this is very simplistic and your hourly rate will vary, but remember that it's almost always lower than the real cost. Even if you, as a developer-under-contract only charge $50/hour the project cost may easily be $100/per or much more due once you add in meetings, testing, resource usage (rooms, consumables, etc). For all but the smallest projects (or those where there already exists infrastructure and talent in another tool) the cost of CF is easily absorbed into the project plan with no adverse impact on completion costs. But the key is that you do HAVE to work this out: full business cost and return on investment over the predicted lifespan of the project/infrastructure. Too many companies are penny-wise, pound-foolish when it comes to this stuff (saving $1200 on software to spend an extra $5000 in development is a really common occurrence among small businesses). There's often nothing that we, as consultants can do, but we should at least be comfortable that we've done all we can to explain the realities of development. Jim Davis -Original Message- From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 12:56 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? Shared hosting doesn't help cost issues when the application is destined for an Intranet since by definition the application needs to be hosted internally. -Matt On Tuesday, September 2, 2003, at 12:01 AM, Raymond Camden wrote: I don't need to stand up for MACR, they can do it themselves, but I have to ask, what do you mean you can't afford CF? You can't afford the free developers edition? If your client can't afford CF, then, as you say, most likely they are 'small guys' - have you considered one of the many CF ISPs? I used Media3 for years and they were quite affordable. === = === Raymond Camden, ColdFusion Jedi Master for Mindseye, Inc (www.mindseye.com) Member of Team Macromedia (http://www.macromedia.com/go/teammacromedia) Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Blog : www.camdenfamily.com/morpheus/blog Yahoo IM : morpheus My ally is the Force, and a powerful ally it is. - Yoda -Original Message- From: Matt Blatchley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, September 01, 2003 8:32 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? Well, since I can't afford anything MM produces legally, I'm going to have to get BlueDragon next time I get paid. MM just lost another sale, no big loss, but I'm sure the small guys add up too. -Matt ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:4 Unsubscribe
Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
If your clients are small enough where the cost of CF is prohibitive it may be likely that the cost of managing an Intranet is also prohibitive (although they may be doing it anyway and have never done a cost analysis). I'll agree with that, but certainly the use of certain software e.g. CF could be what tips the scale. If that is the case, then a cheaper implementation of CFML (BlueDragon) can certainly help in that regard. Many hosting companies are hosting their Intranet at public hosts for this reason. There are some hosts that do nothing but traditional Intranet applications along with email (Exchange hosting, for example, is pretty common due to the cost and complexity of managing an Exchange server). That may be, but there are serious issues with outsourcing internal IT resources externally that many of these companies may not be aware of. One example of this is that their WAN connection becomes a single point of failure. Then of course there are legality issues related to giving non-employees access to sensitive data that aren't under specific consulting agreements, which is the case when your email is hosted by a 3rd party. No, consider an Intranet with is planned to contain, let's say, six distinct applications (not at all uncommon). My case now is that each of these applications only has to save two hours of development time due to CF for it to be just as cost effective as a free solution. Of course, the case with BlueDragon would only need to save one hour per application. Matt Liotta President CEO Montara Software, Inc. http://www.MontaraSoftware.com (888) 408-0900 x901 ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm
Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
kinda like buying a kia:) it tries to be the real thing but its not, will always be a step behind. i dont even do serious programming but no thanks, i'll take the real deal. you guys are making $100 + an hour, you can fit it in. Its up too you to show the client where it saves them money so they dont do as jim pointed out and waste the money somewhere else. Matt, i bet u dont drive a kia do u? If your clients are small enough where the cost of CF is prohibitive it may be likely that the cost of managing an Intranet is also prohibitive (although they may be doing it anyway and have never done a cost analysis). I'll agree with that, but certainly the use of certain software e.g. CF could be what tips the scale. If that is the case, then a cheaper implementation of CFML (BlueDragon) can certainly help in that regard. Many hosting companies are hosting their Intranet at public hosts for this reason. There are some hosts that do nothing but traditional Intranet applications along with email (Exchange hosting, for example, is pretty common due to the cost and complexity of managing an Exchange server). That may be, but there are serious issues with outsourcing internal IT resources externally that many of these companies may not be aware of. One example of this is that their WAN connection becomes a single point of failure. Then of course there are legality issues related to giving non-employees access to sensitive data that aren't under specific consulting agreements, which is the case when your email is hosted by a 3rd party. No, consider an Intranet with is planned to contain, let's say, six distinct applications (not at all uncommon). My case now is that each of these applications only has to save two hours of development time due to CF for it to be just as cost effective as a free solution. Of course, the case with BlueDragon would only need to save one hour per application. Matt Liotta President CEO Montara Software, Inc. http://www.MontaraSoftware.com (888) 408-0900 x901 ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for dependable ColdFusion Hosting. http://www.cfhosting.com
Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
By that logic, you must be running CFMX on top of WebSphere, running on top of an S/390. In the J2EE world there are many vendors all with different offerings and different prices. Certainly you wouldn't avoid using JRun just because it is much cheaper than WebSphere or WebLogic. We CFML developers are now lucky in that we have more than one vendor offering different things at different prices. Matt Liotta President CEO Montara Software, Inc. http://www.MontaraSoftware.com (888) 408-0900 x901 ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm
RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
-Original Message- From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 2:16 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? If your clients are small enough where the cost of CF is prohibitive it may be likely that the cost of managing an Intranet is also prohibitive (although they may be doing it anyway and have never done a cost analysis). I'll agree with that, but certainly the use of certain software e.g. CF could be what tips the scale. If that is the case, then a cheaper implementation of CFML (BlueDragon) can certainly help in that regard. It definitely has an effect, but in most cases (and certainly not in CF's case) the cost of software is very small compared to maintenance and general infrastructure costs. Even managing a small, single Intranet server using free software can be (often surprisingly) very costly once you do a full resource map/prediction - especially when extended to the life of the server. All that being said every little bit does help. ;^) If software costs are lower then you total project costs COULD definitely be lower (but often aren't due to other factors not commonly taken into account). Many hosting companies are hosting their Intranet at public hosts for this reason. There are some hosts that do nothing but traditional Intranet applications along with email (Exchange hosting, for example, is pretty common due to the cost and complexity of managing an Exchange server). That may be, but there are serious issues with outsourcing internal IT resources externally that many of these companies may not be aware of. One example of this is that their WAN connection becomes a single point of failure. Then of course there are legality issues related to giving non-employees access to sensitive data that aren't under specific consulting agreements, which is the case when your email is hosted by a 3rd party. All true - this all depends, of course, on how much the company wants to spend as well. If you want to get away more cheaply you'll be sacrificing some things. A full bullet-proof system will always cost more. No, consider an Intranet with is planned to contain, let's say, six distinct applications (not at all uncommon). My case now is that each of these applications only has to save two hours of development time due to CF for it to be just as cost effective as a free solution. Of course, the case with BlueDragon would only need to save one hour per application. True. I'm not arguing against Blue Dragon but rather the concept that software costs (at this level) are major considerations. Too many times I've heard we can't afford CF only to watch a company spends thousands more pursuing an untried free solution. The problem here is almost always one of training and applicability. A company that has great Linux/PostGres/PHP people will, of course, use them. But a company looking for a solution often gravitates to free software due to cost concerns. Developers are then in the position of learning these tools as they develop - which ends up costing far, far more in the long run than setting up, for example, a Windows environment that they may have some experience with. For a medium/large company this isn't a problem as the extra time can be split with RD/Training and down the road you do gain. But for the very small company this often locks them into a money-pit; tying them into a solution they don't know and resulting either in a failed project or one that doesn't meet expectations. Many of them are roped in by contractors that claim they can pick up something easily. My advice to small business is always stick with what you know and always pay extra for gurus. Jim Davis ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm
RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
There is another question in the whole Bluedragon debate. How many of us would move our site(s) to a hosting company using BD instead of MM ColdFusion? Kind Regards - Mike Brunt Webapper Services LLC Web Site http://www.webapper.com Blog http://www.webapper.net Webapper Web Application Specialists -Original Message- From: Jim Davis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 7:56 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? -Original Message- From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 2:16 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? If your clients are small enough where the cost of CF is prohibitive it may be likely that the cost of managing an Intranet is also prohibitive (although they may be doing it anyway and have never done a cost analysis). I'll agree with that, but certainly the use of certain software e.g. CF could be what tips the scale. If that is the case, then a cheaper implementation of CFML (BlueDragon) can certainly help in that regard. It definitely has an effect, but in most cases (and certainly not in CF's case) the cost of software is very small compared to maintenance and general infrastructure costs. Even managing a small, single Intranet server using free software can be (often surprisingly) very costly once you do a full resource map/prediction - especially when extended to the life of the server. All that being said every little bit does help. ;^) If software costs are lower then you total project costs COULD definitely be lower (but often aren't due to other factors not commonly taken into account). Many hosting companies are hosting their Intranet at public hosts for this reason. There are some hosts that do nothing but traditional Intranet applications along with email (Exchange hosting, for example, is pretty common due to the cost and complexity of managing an Exchange server). That may be, but there are serious issues with outsourcing internal IT resources externally that many of these companies may not be aware of. One example of this is that their WAN connection becomes a single point of failure. Then of course there are legality issues related to giving non-employees access to sensitive data that aren't under specific consulting agreements, which is the case when your email is hosted by a 3rd party. All true - this all depends, of course, on how much the company wants to spend as well. If you want to get away more cheaply you'll be sacrificing some things. A full bullet-proof system will always cost more. No, consider an Intranet with is planned to contain, let's say, six distinct applications (not at all uncommon). My case now is that each of these applications only has to save two hours of development time due to CF for it to be just as cost effective as a free solution. Of course, the case with BlueDragon would only need to save one hour per application. True. I'm not arguing against Blue Dragon but rather the concept that software costs (at this level) are major considerations. Too many times I've heard we can't afford CF only to watch a company spends thousands more pursuing an untried free solution. The problem here is almost always one of training and applicability. A company that has great Linux/PostGres/PHP people will, of course, use them. But a company looking for a solution often gravitates to free software due to cost concerns. Developers are then in the position of learning these tools as they develop - which ends up costing far, far more in the long run than setting up, for example, a Windows environment that they may have some experience with. For a medium/large company this isn't a problem as the extra time can be split with RD/Training and down the road you do gain. But for the very small company this often locks them into a money-pit; tying them into a solution they don't know and resulting either in a failed project or one that doesn't meet expectations. Many of them are roped in by contractors that claim they can pick up something easily. My advice to small business is always stick with what you know and always pay extra for gurus. Jim Davis ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in ColdFusion and related topics. http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.cfm
RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
Do such places exist? -Original Message- From: Mike Brunt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 8:28 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? There is another question in the whole Bluedragon debate. How many of us would move our site(s) to a hosting company using BD instead of MM ColdFusion? Kind Regards - Mike Brunt Webapper Services LLC Web Site http://www.webapper.com Blog http://www.webapper.net Webapper Web Application Specialists -Original Message- From: Jim Davis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 7:56 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? -Original Message- From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 2:16 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? If your clients are small enough where the cost of CF is prohibitive it may be likely that the cost of managing an Intranet is also prohibitive (although they may be doing it anyway and have never done a cost analysis). I'll agree with that, but certainly the use of certain software e.g. CF could be what tips the scale. If that is the case, then a cheaper implementation of CFML (BlueDragon) can certainly help in that regard. It definitely has an effect, but in most cases (and certainly not in CF's case) the cost of software is very small compared to maintenance and general infrastructure costs. Even managing a small, single Intranet server using free software can be (often surprisingly) very costly once you do a full resource map/prediction - especially when extended to the life of the server. All that being said every little bit does help. ;^) If software costs are lower then you total project costs COULD definitely be lower (but often aren't due to other factors not commonly taken into account). Many hosting companies are hosting their Intranet at public hosts for this reason. There are some hosts that do nothing but traditional Intranet applications along with email (Exchange hosting, for example, is pretty common due to the cost and complexity of managing an Exchange server). That may be, but there are serious issues with outsourcing internal IT resources externally that many of these companies may not be aware of. One example of this is that their WAN connection becomes a single point of failure. Then of course there are legality issues related to giving non-employees access to sensitive data that aren't under specific consulting agreements, which is the case when your email is hosted by a 3rd party. All true - this all depends, of course, on how much the company wants to spend as well. If you want to get away more cheaply you'll be sacrificing some things. A full bullet-proof system will always cost more. No, consider an Intranet with is planned to contain, let's say, six distinct applications (not at all uncommon). My case now is that each of these applications only has to save two hours of development time due to CF for it to be just as cost effective as a free solution. Of course, the case with BlueDragon would only need to save one hour per application. True. I'm not arguing against Blue Dragon but rather the concept that software costs (at this level) are major considerations. Too many times I've heard we can't afford CF only to watch a company spends thousands more pursuing an untried free solution. The problem here is almost always one of training and applicability. A company that has great Linux/PostGres/PHP people will, of course, use them. But a company looking for a solution often gravitates to free software due to cost concerns. Developers are then in the position of learning these tools as they develop - which ends up costing far, far more in the long run than setting up, for example, a Windows environment that they may have some experience with. For a medium/large company this isn't a problem as the extra time can be split with RD/Training and down the road you do gain. But for the very small company this often locks them into a money-pit; tying them into a solution they don't know and resulting either in a failed project or one that doesn't meet expectations. Many of them are roped in by contractors that claim they can pick up something easily. My advice to small business is always stick with what you know and always pay extra for gurus. Jim Davis ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com
BD hosting (was Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?)
I am not aware of anyone who is offering shared BlueDragon hosting at this point. You may want to contact New Atlanta directly in that regard. However, I am sure that many hosting companies would step up to the plate if the need exists. I wonder if the free version of BlueDragon could be used by hosting companies. Matt Liotta President CEO Montara Software, Inc. http://www.MontaraSoftware.com (888) 408-0900 x901 ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm
RE: BD hosting (was Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?)
Yes, we're working with several hosting companies to offer BlueDragon support. Yes, they'll be able to use the free version of BlueDragon to offer dramatically lower costs to their customers. Stay tuned... Vince Bonfanti New Atlanta Communications, LLC http://www.newatlanta.com -Original Message- From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 12:19 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: BD hosting (was Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?) I am not aware of anyone who is offering shared BlueDragon hosting at this point. You may want to contact New Atlanta directly in that regard. However, I am sure that many hosting companies would step up to the plate if the need exists. I wonder if the free version of BlueDragon could be used by hosting companies. Matt Liotta President CEO Montara Software, Inc. http://www.MontaraSoftware.com (888) 408-0900 x901 ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm
RE: BD hosting (was Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?)
I thought that earlier this summer hosting partners were to be announced, but I do not remember seeing anything about them I believe I heard that on the BD list some time ago. Yves Arsenault Carrefour Infotech 5, Acadian Dr. Charlottetown, PEI C1C 1M2 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (902)368-1895 ext.242 ICQ #117650823 -Original Message- From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: September 2, 2003 1:19 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: BD hosting (was Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?) I am not aware of anyone who is offering shared BlueDragon hosting at this point. You may want to contact New Atlanta directly in that regard. However, I am sure that many hosting companies would step up to the plate if the need exists. I wonder if the free version of BlueDragon could be used by hosting companies. Matt Liotta President CEO Montara Software, Inc. http://www.MontaraSoftware.com (888) 408-0900 x901 ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm
RE: BD hosting (was Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?)
I knew I hadn't dreamed up the whole thing... :-) - Yves - -Original Message- From: Vince Bonfanti [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: September 2, 2003 1:38 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: BD hosting (was Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?) Yes, we're working with several hosting companies to offer BlueDragon support. Yes, they'll be able to use the free version of BlueDragon to offer dramatically lower costs to their customers. Stay tuned... Vince Bonfanti New Atlanta Communications, LLC http://www.newatlanta.com -Original Message- From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 12:19 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: BD hosting (was Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?) I am not aware of anyone who is offering shared BlueDragon hosting at this point. You may want to contact New Atlanta directly in that regard. However, I am sure that many hosting companies would step up to the plate if the need exists. I wonder if the free version of BlueDragon could be used by hosting companies. Matt Liotta President CEO Montara Software, Inc. http://www.MontaraSoftware.com (888) 408-0900 x901 ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm
RE: BD hosting (was Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?)
Yes, we've chosen to delay those announcements, and the releases of BlueDragon 3.1 and BlueDragon.NET (both of which were originally planned for this summer) for reasons that will become clear very soon (it's a good thing). Vince Bonfanti New Atlanta Communications, LLC http://www.newatlanta.com -Original Message- From: Yves Arsenault [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 12:36 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: BD hosting (was Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?) I thought that earlier this summer hosting partners were to be announced, but I do not remember seeing anything about them I believe I heard that on the BD list some time ago. Yves Arsenault Carrefour Infotech 5, Acadian Dr. Charlottetown, PEI C1C 1M2 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (902)368-1895 ext.242 ICQ #117650823 -Original Message- From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: September 2, 2003 1:19 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: BD hosting (was Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?) I am not aware of anyone who is offering shared BlueDragon hosting at this point. You may want to contact New Atlanta directly in that regard. However, I am sure that many hosting companies would step up to the plate if the need exists. I wonder if the free version of BlueDragon could be used by hosting companies. Matt Liotta President CEO Montara Software, Inc. http://www.MontaraSoftware.com (888) 408-0900 x901 ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm
Re: BD hosting (was Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?)
In one of Forta's blog entries (http://www.forta.com/blog/index.cfm?mode=eentry=855) he mentions that shared hosting companies could provide an instance of CFMX for each customer avoiding many of the problems associated with shared hosting. He goes on to state in a comment that each instance of CFMX uses 30MB of memory. Based on my understanding of hosting economics, 30MB per customer wouldn't allow a hosting company to put enough people on the same box to charge the same price as existing shared hosting. Is it possible to deploy BlueDragon is a similar configuration and what kind of memory usage does it have for each instance? -Matt On Tuesday, September 2, 2003, at 12:38 PM, Vince Bonfanti wrote: Yes, we're working with several hosting companies to offer BlueDragon support. Yes, they'll be able to use the free version of BlueDragon to offer dramatically lower costs to their customers. Stay tuned... Vince Bonfanti New Atlanta Communications, LLC http://www.newatlanta.com -Original Message- From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 12:19 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: BD hosting (was Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?) I am not aware of anyone who is offering shared BlueDragon hosting at this point. You may want to contact New Atlanta directly in that regard. However, I am sure that many hosting companies would step up to the plate if the need exists. I wonder if the free version of BlueDragon could be used by hosting companies. Matt Liotta President CEO Montara Software, Inc. http://www.MontaraSoftware.com (888) 408-0900 x901 ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm
RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
For me, I wouldn't at the moment just because I'm very happy where I am (CrystalTech). However BlueDragon has the definite potential to bring CF hosting prices down significantly (one of the complaints I here about CF) so I would really like to see it offered by a few hosts. As Vince pointed out in a branch from this thread BlueDragon also makes excellent sense for somebody that wants to package their CF application for use on a server lacking CF (which can be in either J2EE or, soon, .NET). Although this market has traditionally been very small with CF Blue Dragon may expand it greatly. Jim Davis -Original Message- From: Mike Brunt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 11:28 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? There is another question in the whole Bluedragon debate. How many of us would move our site(s) to a hosting company using BD instead of MM ColdFusion? Kind Regards - Mike Brunt Webapper Services LLC Web Site http://www.webapper.com Blog http://www.webapper.net Webapper Web Application Specialists -Original Message- From: Jim Davis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 7:56 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? -Original Message- From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 2:16 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? If your clients are small enough where the cost of CF is prohibitive it may be likely that the cost of managing an Intranet is also prohibitive (although they may be doing it anyway and have never done a cost analysis). I'll agree with that, but certainly the use of certain software e.g. CF could be what tips the scale. If that is the case, then a cheaper implementation of CFML (BlueDragon) can certainly help in that regard. It definitely has an effect, but in most cases (and certainly not in CF's case) the cost of software is very small compared to maintenance and general infrastructure costs. Even managing a small, single Intranet server using free software can be (often surprisingly) very costly once you do a full resource map/prediction - especially when extended to the life of the server. All that being said every little bit does help. ;^) If software costs are lower then you total project costs COULD definitely be lower (but often aren't due to other factors not commonly taken into account). Many hosting companies are hosting their Intranet at public hosts for this reason. There are some hosts that do nothing but traditional Intranet applications along with email (Exchange hosting, for example, is pretty common due to the cost and complexity of managing an Exchange server). That may be, but there are serious issues with outsourcing internal IT resources externally that many of these companies may not be aware of. One example of this is that their WAN connection becomes a single point of failure. Then of course there are legality issues related to giving non-employees access to sensitive data that aren't under specific consulting agreements, which is the case when your email is hosted by a 3rd party. All true - this all depends, of course, on how much the company wants to spend as well. If you want to get away more cheaply you'll be sacrificing some things. A full bullet-proof system will always cost more. No, consider an Intranet with is planned to contain, let's say, six distinct applications (not at all uncommon). My case now is that each of these applications only has to save two hours of development time due to CF for it to be just as cost effective as a free solution. Of course, the case with BlueDragon would only need to save one hour per application. True. I'm not arguing against Blue Dragon but rather the concept that software costs (at this level) are major considerations. Too many times I've heard we can't afford CF only to watch a company spends thousands more pursuing an untried free solution. The problem here is almost always one of training and applicability. A company that has great Linux/PostGres/PHP people will, of course, use them. But a company looking for a solution often gravitates to free software due to cost concerns. Developers are then in the position of learning these tools as they develop - which ends up costing far, far more in the long run than setting up, for example, a Windows environment that they may have some experience with. For a medium/large company this isn't a problem as the extra time can be split with RD/Training and down the road you do gain. But for the very small company this often locks them into a money-pit; tying them into a solution they don't know and resulting either in a failed project or one that doesn't meet expectations. Many of them are roped in by contractors that claim
Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
On Thursday 28 Aug 2003 21:00 pm, Matt Blatchley wrote: Blue Dragonquite impressed. How do they get away with that? The same way the Mono folks 'get away' with writing their own .net compiler. -- Tom Chiverton (sorry 'bout sig.) Advanced ColdFusion Programmer Tel: +44(0)1749 834997 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] BlueFinger Limited Underwood Business Park Wookey Hole Road, WELLS. BA5 1AF Tel: +44 (0)1749 834900 Fax: +44 (0)1749 834901 web: www.bluefinger.com Company Reg No: 4209395 Registered Office: 2 Temple Back East, Temple Quay, BRISTOL. BS1 6EG. *** This E-mail contains confidential information for the addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify us immediately. You should not use, disclose, distribute or copy this communication if received in error. No binding contract will result from this e-mail until such time as a written document is signed on behalf of the company. BlueFinger Limited cannot accept responsibility for the completeness or accuracy of this message as it has been transmitted over public networks.*** ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm
RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
Well, since I can't afford anything MM produces legally, I'm going to have to get BlueDragon next time I get paid. MM just lost another sale, no big loss, but I'm sure the small guys add up too. -Matt -Original Message- From: Thomas Chiverton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, September 01, 2003 8:49 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? On Thursday 28 Aug 2003 21:00 pm, Matt Blatchley wrote: Blue Dragonquite impressed. How do they get away with that? The same way the Mono folks 'get away' with writing their own .net compiler. -- Tom Chiverton (sorry 'bout sig.) Advanced ColdFusion Programmer Tel: +44(0)1749 834997 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] BlueFinger Limited Underwood Business Park Wookey Hole Road, WELLS. BA5 1AF Tel: +44 (0)1749 834900 Fax: +44 (0)1749 834901 web: www.bluefinger.com Company Reg No: 4209395 Registered Office: 2 Temple Back East, Temple Quay, BRISTOL. BS1 6EG. *** This E-mail contains confidential information for the addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify us immediately. You should not use, disclose, distribute or copy this communication if received in error. No binding contract will result from this e-mail until such time as a written document is signed on behalf of the company. BlueFinger Limited cannot accept responsibility for the completeness or accuracy of this message as it has been transmitted over public networks.*** ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for dependable ColdFusion Hosting. http://www.cfhosting.com
Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
You don't use DW and PS on *NIX? Maybe you should check out Crossover Office from CodeWeavers.com. Look at their list of supported apps... Cutter Ben Densmore wrote: Not to sway too far from what's currently being discussed but is there any chance that a *NIX version of DW will be made? Aren't a majority of the people who use php more into Linux and Unix? If they really wanted to get more php users a *NIX version would probably pique their interest. One of the main reasons I don't switch to linux full time is because I can't use DW and photoshop. I know I could use wine but it's not the same to me. Ben - Original Message - From: Joshua Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 1:39 PM Subject: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? Something you have to remember is that Dreamweaver was quite popular before MM had CF in it's toolkit. You can't expect them to totally change the strategy of an already popular tool just to please the CF community. There's a large DW community as well and they do not all - or even most - use CF. Marketing is targeted to increase sales in a certain area. CF developers already buy DW and are keenly aware of it, there is no competing product for CF developers, it's the other folks that need to be introduced to it and need to be shown how it compares to their current tools. Granted, I pretty much stopped using DW when MX rolled out, but lots of people love it. You can't expect MM to stop schmoozing it's pre-existing customer base and ONLY focus on CF. Seriously now, you don't want all those ASP and PHP folks spending their money somewhere else - the beauty of it is that all of those people who buy DW and use it to code PHP and ASP are contributing to the future of MM and CF with their funds. In the end, I think having an IDE that welcomes other developers is an excellent RD opportunity as well. If MM knows what ASP and PHP coders are doing, what their tools offer, etc. it gives them better insight on how to keep CF competitive - or one step ahead as is the current situation. I think that would be a better angle for you than touting Dreamweaver as your IDE, to say that all of those people coming in to do ASP development obviously believe in Macromedia - they use their tools. Then you can tell them the other developers are just too cheap to fork over the $ for a real App Server and that's why they choose ASP :) Joshua Miller Head Programmer / IT Manager Garrison Enterprises Inc. www.garrisonenterprises.net [EMAIL PROTECTED] (704) 569-0801 ext. 254 * Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender states them to be the views of Garrison Enterprises Inc. This e-mail is intended only for the individual or entity to which it is addressed and contains information that is private and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error please delete it immediately and advise us by return e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] * -Original Message- From: Angel Stewart [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 1:15 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? Listen, I am by far not the only one that has responded to this topic,so don't make it appear as though I'm bitching up a storm unnecessarily. From Ben Forta's reply, the thread has been read and salient portions sent onto the right people. Ergo the discussion has helped in whatever small way. Ciao. -Angel P.s. in answer to your questions: Are you saying that your clients will choose whether or not to give you work based on the IDE you use? No. Further, are you saying that you pitch CF as a solution to your clients partly because of DW MX? Because of MM support for DWMX and it's assistance in RAD for CF,and the fact that it has become well known, It is worth mentioning as part of a pitch to provide a CF Based solution. (You may want to check Microsoft's website and their case studies which always mention the Microsoft Visual IDE used and how it enhances the .NET platform and makes it easy for developers to provide their solution, if this confuses you.) We have mentioned Dreamweaaver MX as an example that the application server has a mature and cohesive IDE behind it and is part of the larger MM vision and product suite.We have illustrated the fact that it uses industry standard development environments same as .ASP and PHP,in response to client's questions about the maturity of Coldfusion as opposed to .ASP and whether future expansion of their solution will be stymied because of loss of support for emerging technologies. It helps when answering questions sitting
RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
Come on Matt you supposed to be logic man. That is not a linear statement. It would depend on the number of installs, and how large the sector it is art of grows. It could just have had such a large base that it would never need another copy sold in order to retain a majority, even if it was not as large a majority. While I'm sure that logic man can defend himself, he's saying that the percentage of CF installs versus ASP.NET/J2EE/PHP/etc installs is dropping. So, if everyone in the world were using CF, and one of those people switched to ASP.NET, he'd be correct. If it's not as large a majority, it's losing market share. You could certainly argue that its diminishing market share isn't significant - that's what I believe, myself. It's a big world, and products' popularity will ebb and flow, and CF is still quite popular. And, while I'm not logic man either, if you think that CF holds the largest share of web application servers, I think you should put down the crack pipe. Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ voice: (202) 797-5496 fax: (202) 797-5444 ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for dependable ColdFusion Hosting. http://www.cfhosting.com
Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
Hi Sean, I know my 'dream' is a bit farfetched, but surely it's doable :P I believe the help system in DWMX is hugely inferior to CFS. I mean dramatically inferior. To reiterate, you can't copy the example code. You can't search the reference. If you hit F1 on a function, you get nothing. That functionality is, well, simple. You can search windows help, and copy and paste from it. There's simply no excuse for that. And we were getting function references on F1 in CFS in 1998, why is it so hard now? Does 2004 address any of this? Did I type that about the color coding for CFS being better, because I'm certainly wrong about that, DWMX definitely wins hands down on color coding for CF code, but loses in spades for SQL code coloring (it doesn't do it). I agree with Massimo, the CF specific toolbar in DWMX doesn't compare to the CF specific toolbar in CFS. Right click on the one in CFS and choose customize, you'll see why. And again, we had this in 1998. I have no issue with the general support for HTML, Javascript, CSS and XML in DWMX, and in DWMX 2004, the CSS has really come a long way... And theres a couple of huge usability issues with DWMX that I'm particularly frustrated with, especially because of their simplicity to implement. /shrug - Calvin - Original Message - From: Sean A Corfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 5:14 PM Subject: Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? On Wednesday, Aug 27, 2003, at 11:20 US/Pacific, Calvin Ward wrote: Wouldn't you like to be able to open a page within the IDE, go through your application, have debug output in another panel of your IDE for that page and it's include files, be able to set break points, and trace variable values to reduce cfabort debugging needs, and come across an error, click on the error within your IDE, have it open the offending .cfm page in your IDE, and highlight the error. Yup, this sort of debugging can be a wonderful tool - even tho' it usually makes the code under investigation run painfully slowly. Wouldn't that be powerful? And doesn't that sound familiar (except that it works so clunkily and problematically in CFS...)? Does it work with CFMX at all? I don't use CFS so I don't know but from what I read here, I don't believe it does - and would probably require substantial changes to CFMX's compiler to support the sort of single-step / step-in / step-out / breakpoint / watch point stuff that some languages boast. Part of the problem when writing debugging tools for high-level languages like CFML is how to map the source code to / from the executable code in a debugger and how to provide the 'hooks' necessary for a debugger to peek inside a running program - you normally end up with 'compile-for-debug' vs 'compile-for-production' switches. I'd love to see it in CF at some point but I'm not holding my breath! CFS is far superior with it's help/reference system alone (language specific), not to mention the color coding (language specific), and the toolbar (language specific), and so forth. Hmm, but DWMX includes help/reference material for CF, color coding for CF (and customizable) and a CF-specific toolbar... And DWMX 2004 provides enhanced CFMX support: http://www.macromedia.com/software/dreamweaver/productinfo/features/ static_tour/coldfusion/ It doesn't explicitly mention it here but the CF-specific toolbar in DWMX 2004 is, in my opinion, a big improvement over the one in DWMX. What we need is a ColdFusion centric IDE, that also strongly supports the rest of the stuff we'll be reasonably expected to work within (xml, html, css, javascript). And (you know where I'm going with this...) DWMX has great support for XML, HTML, CSS and JavaScript - and all of those are improved in MX 2004 (see the information on the website). In particular, some of the enhancements to XML support make writing Fusebox 4 / Mach II configuration files a breeze! Sean A Corfield -- http://www.corfield.org/blog/ If you're not annoying somebody, you're not really alive. -- Margaret Atwood ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com
Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
On Thursday, Aug 28, 2003, at 15:15 US/Pacific, Massimo, Tiziana e Federica wrote: Hmm, but DWMX includes help/reference material for CF, DWMX's reference panel is a joke :-) It seems designed for a PDA, it's hard to read and you can't copy/past from it. Hmm, I'd never noticed the cut'n'paste issue until just now. Guess I rely much more on the LiveDocs version and the local HTML version (the latter is particularly nice in CFMX 6.1!). It doesn't explicitly mention it here but the CF-specific toolbar in DWMX 2004 is, in my opinion, a big improvement over the one in DWMX. Funny, I think it's a step back since it requires an additional click to get many buttons. I actually already hacked it to make it works again like in DW MX, with 3 separated tabs. That was what I didn't like in DWMX (6.x) because you had to keep clicking between tabs to get to things! To each their own I guess :) Assigning keyboard shortcuts gets a lot easier in DWMX 2004 too, in my opinion. The good thing is that finally DW 2004 introduced the ability to customize the Insert Bar from a GUI, so, in the end, this allow people freedom of choice (in the past hacking the xml menu files was required) Yes, I've started to use this and find it very convenient. In particular, some of the enhancements to XML support make writing Fusebox 4 / Mach II configuration files a breeze! Since you are playing with Mach II, get a copy of the DTD for the configuration files, then import it in the Tag Library Editor and see by yourself. Those are the kind of things that I love in DW and boost my productivity. I haven't tried importing the DTD into the TLE but even the way DWMX 2004 sniffs the tags in an XML file when you open it and then offers auto-completion drop-downs makes editing the XML files much easier. I'll have to try out that import trick... Thanx! Sean A Corfield -- http://www.corfield.org/blog/ If you're not annoying somebody, you're not really alive. -- Margaret Atwood ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com
Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
Hmm, I'd never noticed the cut'n'paste issue until just now. Guess I rely much more on the LiveDocs version and the local HTML version (the latter is particularly nice in CFMX 6.1!). I use LiveDocs most of the times too. Since you are playing with Mach II, get a copy of the DTD for the configuration files, then import it in the Tag Library Editor and see by yourself. Those are the kind of things that I love in DW and boost my productivity. I haven't tried importing the DTD into the TLE but even the way DWMX 2004 sniffs the tags in an XML file when you open it and then offers auto-completion drop-downs makes editing the XML files much easier. I'll have to try out that import trick... Thanx! Auto-completion for XML was available in DW MX already. The Tag Library Editor can import XML Schema and even TLD files for JSP Tag Libraries. Since it generates VTML files, I often reuse them in Homesite too :-))) Massimo Foti Certified Dreamweaver MX Developer Certified Advanced ColdFusion MX Developer http://www.massimocorner.com/ ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in ColdFusion and related topics. http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.cfm
Re: devices (was Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?)
More likely SNMP or telnet/SSH. Unless you mean small SOHO and consumer devices. I'm not saying networking companies are doing away with SNMP or other interfaces, but most are building or planning on building web interfaces for the products. JRun has some nice OEM agreements with networking companies. Matt Liotta President CEO Montara Software, Inc. http://www.MontaraSoftware.com (888) 408-0900 x901 ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in ColdFusion and related topics. http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.cfm
Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
I don't see where my logic is flawed. No matter what the size of the CF market is in any sector, as long as the entire market is growing CF would have to grow at an equal rate to keep the same market share. When I stated that the market share for CF was declining I was asked to provide evidence. I backed it up with information provided by MM. I only asked for you to do the same in regard to your statement about CF in the government sector. -Matt On Thursday, August 28, 2003, at 05:32 PM, Tim Heald wrote: Come on Matt you supposed to be logic man. That is not a linear statement. It would depend on the number of installs, and how large the sector it is art of grows. It could just have had such a large base that it would never need another copy sold in order to retain a majority, even if it was not as large a majority. Tim -Original Message- From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 3:51 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? Also when talking about how much of the market share CF has, you have to look at the installed base, which I know is huge. I mean hell, how many 4.5.1 installs do you think are still floating around out there. I know we have several. My sense is that the installed base of CF is significant. Declining sales != declining market share I think most people would disagree since the entire market that CF is in is growing. Thus, for CF to keep the same market share it would have to grow at a rate equal to that of the entire market. Obviously, declining sales is an indicator that CF is not growing at the same rate. Matt Liotta President CEO Montara Software, Inc. http://www.MontaraSoftware.com (888) 408-0900 x901 ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm
Re: devices (was Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?)
Matt Liotta wrote: More likely SNMP or telnet/SSH. Unless you mean small SOHO and consumer devices. I'm not saying networking companies are doing away with SNMP or other interfaces, but most are building or planning on building web interfaces for the products. You were saying (..) networking equipment, which is now generally managed via a web interface (..). Maybe SOHO and consumer devices are manged through a web interface, but SNMP and telnet/SSH reigns supreme in the equipment that has more options as a digital watch. It appears you meant to write manageable instead of managed. Jochem ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in ColdFusion and related topics. http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.cfm
Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
I found it expedient in some cases, to 'eat' the cost of the Pro (er Standard, which still sounds like a lesser version) version for large (in dollar figure) projects in order to win the contract. $1300 for CF Standard isn't a great deal of cost when you are talking about an initial project of 10k or more and ensuring that your new client will be coming back to CF, and likely yourself, for it's future solutions. - Calvin - Original Message - From: Bryan Stevenson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 3:23 PM Subject: Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? I would think one reason is the cost of the CFServer. Every person I've talked to that is outside of the CF development world tells me the reason they never got into ColdFusion or don't get into it is because of the cost. Although I really enjoy CF, PHP and MySQL are basically free. It's very difficult to convince someone to switch from paying nothing to having to dump thousand into just owning the license. For starters it's not thousands for the standard edition. This arguement is easily won when you tell the client you can cut development and future maintenace costs significantly by using CF (being that you can do the same work in less code). If you need the Enterprise edition then you're looking at a pricey project to start with and this cost saving will only help you make the sale in that case. Then having to pay for the pipe and servers on top of the CFlicense costs. Ummyou pay this anyways...last I checked PHP and ASP still required a pipe and a web server ;-) Although we are all aware of the numerous ways to cut the costs like leasing the license, it still deters people for making the jump. Just my experience when I work with ASP, PHP, and JSP folks. The competition is too much for MM when the competitors products are free, even with the capability issues that the others don't offer. See abovemoney talks ;-) Most CF apps do not require a standalone box to run on so the cost of CF Server doesn't even factor in. If the project is large enough in scale to need a standalone box, there are manu dedicated packages that will allow ya to lease the DB and server software which keeps the monthly and upfront costs low while still giving the benefit in lower development costsseems like a pretty damn good deal to me ;-) Cheers Bryan Stevenson B.Comm. VP Director of E-Commerce Development Electric Edge Systems Group Inc. t. 250.920.8830 e. [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Macromedia Associate Partner www.macromedia.com - Vancouver Island ColdFusion Users Group Founder Director www.cfug-vancouverisland.com This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for dependable ColdFusion Hosting. http://www.cfhosting.com ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com
Re: devices (was Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?)
Maybe SOHO and consumer devices are manged through a web interface, but SNMP and telnet/SSH reigns supreme in the equipment that has more options as a digital watch. I'm not talking about SOHO and consumer devices although they certainly have web interfaces. I am talking about enterprise class and telecom grade equipment from vendors such as Cisco. See http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/sw/iosswrel/ps1831/ products_configuration_guide_chapter09186a00800ca66a.html, where Cisco talks about the embedded web interface to IOS. Matt Liotta President CEO Montara Software, Inc. http://www.MontaraSoftware.com (888) 408-0900 x901 ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in ColdFusion and related topics. http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.cfm
Re: devices (was Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?)
Matt Liotta wrote: Maybe SOHO and consumer devices are manged through a web interface, but SNMP and telnet/SSH reigns supreme in the equipment that has more options as a digital watch. I'm not talking about SOHO and consumer devices although they certainly have web interfaces. I am talking about enterprise class and telecom grade equipment from vendors such as Cisco. See http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/sw/iosswrel/ps1831/ products_configuration_guide_chapter09186a00800ca66a.html, where Cisco talks about the embedded web interface to IOS. Yes, that makes it manageable through HTTP. So does that mean that the average ISP is going to configure his 16000 ATM BitStream VCi's on his Cisco 6400 BBRAS through a web interface? Will a telco keep on clicking in the HTTP interface of his DSLAMs until he has configured the sync speed for each customers DSL link correctly. Or will he do that through some other protocol? And how about traffic monitoring applications, for instance http://wwwstats.net.wisc.edu/, is that done by HTTP or by reading the port counters with SNMP? HTTP interfaces are very nice for troubleshooting network equipment because it means you don't have to know the MIB by hard, but not for normal operation. Jochem ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for dependable ColdFusion Hosting. http://www.cfhosting.com
Re: devices (was Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?)
I'm not sure why you are suggesting that my position is that all management and monitoring of a networking device need be done through an HTTP interface. My point in case it wasn't clear is most networking equipment now includes a web interface for management purposes. I made this only to further what I thought was the more on topic and useful insight, which is that in many cases these web applications are in fact running on top of Servlet engines. Additionally, people might be interested to know that at least in the case of Cisco, the Servlet engine they OEMed is New Atlanta's ServletExec. Imagine how cool it would be if New Atlanta convinced one or more of its OEMs to use BlueDragon instead. That would really have an impact on CF's market share. -Matt On Friday, August 29, 2003, at 09:53 AM, Jochem van Dieten wrote: Matt Liotta wrote: Maybe SOHO and consumer devices are manged through a web interface, but SNMP and telnet/SSH reigns supreme in the equipment that has more options as a digital watch. I'm not talking about SOHO and consumer devices although they certainly have web interfaces. I am talking about enterprise class and telecom grade equipment from vendors such as Cisco. See http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/sw/iosswrel/ps1831/ products_configuration_guide_chapter09186a00800ca66a.html, where Cisco talks about the embedded web interface to IOS. Yes, that makes it manageable through HTTP. So does that mean that the average ISP is going to configure his 16000 ATM BitStream VCi's on his Cisco 6400 BBRAS through a web interface? Will a telco keep on clicking in the HTTP interface of his DSLAMs until he has configured the sync speed for each customers DSL link correctly. Or will he do that through some other protocol? And how about traffic monitoring applications, for instance http://wwwstats.net.wisc.edu/, is that done by HTTP or by reading the port counters with SNMP? HTTP interfaces are very nice for troubleshooting network equipment because it means you don't have to know the MIB by hard, but not for normal operation. Jochem ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm
Re: devices (was Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?)
Matt Liotta wrote: I'm not sure why you are suggesting that my position is that all management and monitoring of a networking device need be done through an HTTP interface. I am not suggesting that that is your position. I am quoting you on your position that (..) networking equipment (..) is now generally managed via a web interface (..) and asking you to elaborate on that. Because as far as my experience goes, on most network equipment web interfaces are not used for management except for occasional troubleshooting and to provide management with something with nice colors and graphs they think they can understand. Jochem ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com
Re: devices (was Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?)
I hope my last response cleared up what I was trying to say. If not, please email me off list and I'd be happy clarify my points more without boring the list. -Matt On Friday, August 29, 2003, at 12:34 PM, Jochem van Dieten wrote: Matt Liotta wrote: I'm not sure why you are suggesting that my position is that all management and monitoring of a networking device need be done through an HTTP interface. I am not suggesting that that is your position. I am quoting you on your position that (..) networking equipment (..) is now generally managed via a web interface (..) and asking you to elaborate on that. Because as far as my experience goes, on most network equipment web interfaces are not used for management except for occasional troubleshooting and to provide management with something with nice colors and graphs they think they can understand. Jochem ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com
RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
Speaking for myself, I do question the commitment from a marketing standpoint for CF. You said that they wished to target the PHP and ASP market, but this doesn't explain why there was no mention of CF specific products in their initial marketing campaign. That contradicts a company wide commitment to a product and a cohesive vision for a line of utilities that includes that product. It's like New Atlanta came out with an IDE for CFML and in the next revision mentioning pages upon pages of new features for .Net and nothing for the standard Bluedragon server, whilst saying outside the offical marketing campaign there have been several 'exciting' improvements for standard Bluedragon. That's akin to what MM is doing with their marketing. In the offical campaign they mention improvements for .ASP and .PHP. But on these lists they say that us CF Coders have so much to look forward to, yet none of these are worth mentioning in the official marketing campaign??? That does not compute. It computes just fine to me. As a CF developer, I'm keenly aware of all upcoming MM product releases. If I were a PHP developer instead, I might not even know that MM has something I can use. Macromedia needs to sell to new customers if they want to be profitable. While it might boost our egos as CF developers if Macromedia focused all its marketing on us, it wouldn't be good for any of us in the long run. Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ voice: (202) 797-5496 fax: (202) 797-5444 ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in ColdFusion and related topics. http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.cfm
RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
Speaking for myself, I do question the commitment from a marketing standpoint for CF. oh, plea lets do some simple math dreamweaver mx updates: 6.1 =1 coldfusion mx updates: 1 2 3 6.1 (red sky) =4 humm.. You said that they wished to target the PHP and ASP market, but this doesn't explain why there was no mention of CF specific products in their initial marketing campaign. hello, you just got red sky and php got ziltch asp got ziltch .net got ziltch. seems too me that they(non cf crowd) should be the ones complaing since those users probably make up 75% of the ppl who buy dw. so are you saying that we should have MM say screw u too the php asp only concentrate on cf? if thats the case, say goodbye too cf i surely dont see enough cf'ers too support it. personally, i see MM do a hell of a lot for the cf crowd. if you dont think so, go to adobe or M$ and see what they will do for you, LMFAO! sure we need people to voice their needs but this is getting ridulous. as far as someone mentioning their cf survey they didnt get all they want.. i wont even comment on that no brainer. maybe im just in a bad mood i appologize for that, but come on. folks at MM, i think you are doing a great job thank you for that. maybe once ppl stop pouting and get more ppl too use coldfusion then the finacial capibilities will be there for MM to do something just for the coldfusion crowd. In the offical campaign they mention improvements for .ASP and .PHP. But on these lists they say that us CF Coders have so much to look forward to, yet none of these are worth mentioning in the official marketing campaign??? helloo. RED SKYRED SKYRED SKY..RED SKY That does not compute. thats not the only thing thats not computing, lol Speaking for myself, I do question the commitment from a marketing standpoint for CF. You said that they wished to target the PHP and ASP market, but this doesn't explain why there was no mention of CF specific products in their initial marketing campaign. That contradicts a company wide commitment to a product and a cohesive vision for a line of utilities that includes that product. It's like New Atlanta came out with an IDE for CFML and in the next revision mentioning pages upon pages of new features for .Net and nothing for the standard Bluedragon server, whilst saying outside the offical marketing campaign there have been several 'exciting' improvements for standard Bluedragon. That's akin to what MM is doing with their marketing. In the offical campaign they mention improvements for .ASP and .PHP. But on these lists they say that us CF Coders have so much to look forward to, yet none of these are worth mentioning in the official marketing campaign??? That does not compute. -Angel -Original Message- From: Ben Forta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2003 3:27 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? For those of you who question the commitment to CF, um, hello? Did you miss 6.1? I for one think that CFMX 6.1 is a very significant upgrade, you may feel otherwise and are entitled to do so. Regardless, investing as we did in CF and then releasing it as a free upgrade to me spells Commitment (with a capital C). Yes, I know there are other departments and product teams within Macromedia who like to play Switzerland and not marry themselves to any product for fear of alienating users of other technologies, but that is marketing and should be recognized as such. I beat up on them for it, you should feel free to do the same. If you hear nothing from the CF team for a while, get worried, until then realize that Macromedia is a big company (i.e., not Allaire) selling lots of products many of which generate far greater revenue than does ColdFusion. --- Ben ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for dependable ColdFusion Hosting. http://www.cfhosting.com
RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
Remember the additional tab that came out in Studio 4.0 or 4.5 or something like that. I think it was called Design or Layout or something like that. Everyone quickly dismissed it since it caused mayhem in the code. I was always hoping MM would supply just the page layout engine for studio to fulfill the original concept of the design tab. That is all I typically need is form or data page layout. Dan ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com
RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
Why do I hear a yet at the end of that? Tim -Original Message- From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2003 4:46 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? It's like New Atlanta came out with an IDE for CFML and in the next revision mentioning pages upon pages of new features for .Net and nothing for the standard Bluedragon server, whilst saying outside the offical marketing campaign there have been several 'exciting' improvements for standard Bluedragon. Is the above meant to be hypothetical? New Atlanta has not come out with an IDE for CFML. Matt Liotta President CEO Montara Software, Inc. http://www.MontaraSoftware.com (888) 408-0900 x901 ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com
RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
Enhanced Find and Replace these are all asthetic enhancements. I don't think Find Replace is an aesthetic enhancement - most designers don't care too much about that stuff. One of my biggest Dreamweaver pet peeves is how Find Replace currently works. Siteless File Editing doesn't help me develop a component based RIA application. No, it helps you to edit individual files without creating a site definition first. I recall lots of CF programmers complained about having to create a site, and it appears that MM has addressed their complaint. But, more usefully, what would help you build a component-based RIA? Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ voice: (202) 797-5496 fax: (202) 797-5444 ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for dependable ColdFusion Hosting. http://www.cfhosting.com
Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
Why do I hear a yet at the end of that? I don't know, why? I can't recall ever hearing or seeing a New Atlanta employee mention they have plans for an IDE. I'm personally looking forward to what they do with BlueDragon. Matt Liotta President CEO Montara Software, Inc. http://www.MontaraSoftware.com (888) 408-0900 x901 ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for dependable ColdFusion Hosting. http://www.cfhosting.com
RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
easy killer whats up dave :) stormin like crazy over here in smallsbury lighting like crazy...like a HOF cf list, word up :) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2003 5:29 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? Speaking for myself, I do question the commitment from a marketing standpoint for CF. oh, plea lets do some simple math dreamweaver mx updates: 6.1 =1 coldfusion mx updates: 1 2 3 6.1 (red sky) =4 humm.. You said that they wished to target the PHP and ASP market, but this doesn't explain why there was no mention of CF specific products in their initial marketing campaign. hello, you just got red sky and php got ziltch asp got ziltch .net got ziltch. seems too me that they(non cf crowd) should be the ones complaing since those users probably make up 75% of the ppl who buy dw. so are you saying that we should have MM say screw u too the php asp only concentrate on cf? if thats the case, say goodbye too cf i surely dont see enough cf'ers too support it. personally, i see MM do a hell of a lot for the cf crowd. if you dont think so, go to adobe or M$ and see what they will do for you, LMFAO! sure we need people to voice their needs but this is getting ridulous. as far as someone mentioning their cf survey they didnt get all they want.. i wont even comment on that no brainer. maybe im just in a bad mood i appologize for that, but come on. folks at MM, i think you are doing a great job thank you for that. maybe once ppl stop pouting and get more ppl too use coldfusion then the finacial capibilities will be there for MM to do something just for the coldfusion crowd. In the offical campaign they mention improvements for .ASP and .PHP. But on these lists they say that us CF Coders have so much to look forward to, yet none of these are worth mentioning in the official marketing campaign??? helloo. RED SKYRED SKYRED SKY..RED SKY That does not compute. thats not the only thing thats not computing, lol Speaking for myself, I do question the commitment from a marketing standpoint for CF. You said that they wished to target the PHP and ASP market, but this doesn't explain why there was no mention of CF specific products in their initial marketing campaign. That contradicts a company wide commitment to a product and a cohesive vision for a line of utilities that includes that product. It's like New Atlanta came out with an IDE for CFML and in the next revision mentioning pages upon pages of new features for .Net and nothing for the standard Bluedragon server, whilst saying outside the offical marketing campaign there have been several 'exciting' improvements for standard Bluedragon. That's akin to what MM is doing with their marketing. In the offical campaign they mention improvements for .ASP and .PHP. But on these lists they say that us CF Coders have so much to look forward to, yet none of these are worth mentioning in the official marketing campaign??? That does not compute. -Angel -Original Message- From: Ben Forta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2003 3:27 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? For those of you who question the commitment to CF, um, hello? Did you miss 6.1? I for one think that CFMX 6.1 is a very significant upgrade, you may feel otherwise and are entitled to do so. Regardless, investing as we did in CF and then releasing it as a free upgrade to me spells Commitment (with a capital C). Yes, I know there are other departments and product teams within Macromedia who like to play Switzerland and not marry themselves to any product for fear of alienating users of other technologies, but that is marketing and should be recognized as such. I beat up on them for it, you should feel free to do the same. If you hear nothing from the CF team for a while, get worried, until then realize that Macromedia is a big company (i.e., not Allaire) selling lots of products many of which generate far greater revenue than does ColdFusion. --- Ben ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for dependable ColdFusion Hosting. http://www.cfhosting.com
RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
FYI Jerry, you can view multiple documents at the same time in jEdit in split views - even supports syntax highlighting for different languages in split views. There's also a jDiff plugin that allows you to compare two files in the same view and it sets alerts in the buffer for each area that's different. Thanks, Joshua Miller Head Programmer / IT Manager Garrison Enterprises Inc. www.garrisonenterprises.net [EMAIL PROTECTED] (704) 569-0801 ext. 254 * Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender states them to be the views of Garrison Enterprises Inc. This e-mail is intended only for the individual or entity to which it is addressed and contains information that is private and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error please delete it immediately and advise us by return e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] * -Original Message- From: Plunkett, Matt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2003 3:20 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? -Original Message- From: Jerry Johnson Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2003 2:02 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? I see it from exactly the opposite point of view. I am forever thankful Allaire (and Macromedia) have divorced the language from the development environment. I also like that Studio isn't CF centric. I use it to edit perl, php, vbscript, bat files, cshell scripts, jsp, hts. +1 I hate having to use different editors for different tasks. I'm pretty sure its argued in Code Complete or a similar book that programmers should master one editor and use that editor for everything. Now if only they would make it so I could view more than one document at the same time in Studio... ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com
Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
I don't think Find Replace is an aesthetic enhancement - most designers don't care too much about that stuff. One of my biggest Dreamweaver pet peeves is how Find Replace currently works. Now I am curious, DW's Find Replace, even in DW MX, is way more powerful than HS/CF Studio and has some features that are simply unmatched but everything else on the market (try search for: specific tag). What are you missing in it? Massimo Foti Certified Dreamweaver MX Developer Certified Advanced ColdFusion MX Developer http://www.massimocorner.com/ ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm
Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
Adam, I'd have to disagree with your assessment that your coding speed won't be affected by your IDE. For example, in DWMX, even 6.1, there are cases where opening a file, changing focus from the app and back, or even saving files would literally take 20 seconds or more. This is before and after and during your coding. Those exact same files in CFS would take less than a second. This issue is mentioned as being addressed in 2004. - Calvin - Original Message - From: Adam Wayne Lehman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2003 5:03 PM Subject: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? Right on Ben! I seriously just don't get this thread at all. Never once in my life have I ever noticed a difference in coding speed based on the IDE I was using. I can just see the expression on my boss's face if I'd say sorry I missed the deadline, but my IDE slowed me down or this would have been done sooner had I had a built in debugger. D-Dub is a fine tool. If it's too slow for you, I suggest you buy a new computer. I'm working on a 2-year old box and it runs like a champ. Quite frankly this argument has been running for so long that it's lost all meaning to me. These issues seem like a security blanket issue, with developers who don't want to give up on something they had for so many years. Personally I got bored with CFStudio/Homesite (after several years). I tried DWMX exclusively for one month and never looked back. (Even though my initial intentions were to try it for 1-month so I could load up on bad things to say MM about) Macromedia is constantly making my life easier with updates to CF and Flash and they have supported our community like no other (even more than Allaire imho). Is it really fair to blast them over the features of one of their IDEs vs another? I mean they _do_ have two separate IDEs. The _only_ reason Homesite is still around is because of the critics. Some of these issues are def legit, but the longer this thread goes on, the more it is starting to sound like whining. I mean a lot of you are just complaining about CFMX 6.1! Seriously if you guys don't like MM that much, maybe you should go .NET and see how much MS listens to your suggestions. I suggest everyone at least try mx2k4 for a month. I assure you you'll still be able to code, and at the very least you'll have tried something, dare I say. new. Adam Wayne Lehman Web Systems Developer Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health Distance Education Division -Original Message- From: Ben Forta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2003 3:27 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? CFSETTING MMHAT=off I've been watching this thread with interest, and have also been forwarding the juicy bits to all sorts of folks within Macromedia. I've stayed out of the discussion thus far, but ... I use Dreamweaver. I also use HomeSite. I also use CodeWrite (which I migrated to after Sage which I migrated to after Brief). I'd love one editor that did it all, it does not exist yet, so I use multiple. It seems that many of you do the same. And no, I do not have to use Dreamweaver, I don't even have to like Dreamweaver, no one (not even my employer) gets to tell me what editor I should use or like. (Anyone who thinks otherwise does not know me). I have been a semi-advocate of Dreamweaver since DWMX (I had been a vocal critic of Dreamweaver prior to that), I have been on the backs of the Dreamweaver team to improve CF support for a long time and continue to do so, I publicly acknowledge what I like about Dreamweaver, and have no qualms about stating what it is that I don't like. I have been very honest in discussing Dreamweaver, and have never positioned it as a CF Studio replacement, and always positioned it as another tool in the tool box while stating that the Dreamweaver team had expressed a commitment to continue to improve ColdFusion integration. It's that last point that seems to be the crux of this all. And for those of you who have complained that Dreamweaver MX 2004 does not do enough for ColdFusion developers, well, I agree. It has improved, and some of the biggest complaints from ColdFusion users (including the speed and needing to always define sites) have been addressed. I would really have liked to have seen more, and as much as I don't like the fact that the Dreamweaver team dedicated resources to improving support for ASP.NET and PHP I also understand the economics. This is a business, Macromedia needs to continue to sell lots of Dreamweaver. The product has 2,000,000+ users (or something like that) most of whom do not use ColdFusion, the static page market is saturated and they need to go after where the big bucks are, targeting PHP and ASP.NET users make sense. (Whether or not those users will buy the story remains to be seen, but the Dreamweaver team had to make
