Re: [flexcoders] Still Fuzzy about Flex 2.0 and CFCs
On Monday 24 July 2006 15:02, Battershall, Jeff wrote: Obviously, FDS would be a preferred way of integrating with CF if available, Dunno about that. There is a difference betwen granular record editing, and service invocation - FDS is better* for the former, remoting for the later. -- Tom Chiverton This email is sent for and on behalf of Halliwells LLP. Halliwells LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales under registered number OC307980 whose registered office address is at St James's Court Brown Street Manchester M2 2JF. A list of members is available for inspection at the registered office. Any reference to a partner in relation to Halliwells LLP means a member of Halliwells LLP. Regulated by the Law Society. CONFIDENTIALITY This email is intended only for the use of the addressee named above and may be confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the addressee you must not read it and must not use any information contained in nor copy it nor inform any person other than Halliwells LLP or the addressee of its existence or contents. If you have received this email in error please delete it and notify Halliwells LLP IT Department on 0870 365 8008. For more information about Halliwells LLP visit www.halliwells.com. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Something is new at Yahoo! Groups. Check out the enhanced email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/SISQkA/gOaOAA/yQLSAA/nhFolB/TM ~- -- Flexcoders Mailing List FAQ: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/flexcoders/files/flexcodersFAQ.txt Search Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/flexcoders/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
RE: [flexcoders] Still Fuzzy about Flex 2.0 and CFCs
OK, gotcha, but I suppose the other issue is what version of AMF is availble server-side. I'm getting the impression that AMF3 is necessary both on the client and server in Flex 2.0 - am I right about that? Jeff -Original Message- From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom Chiverton Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 11:20 AM To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [flexcoders] Still Fuzzy about Flex 2.0 and CFCs On Monday 24 July 2006 15:02, Battershall, Jeff wrote: Obviously, FDS would be a preferred way of integrating with CF if available, Dunno about that. There is a difference betwen granular record editing, and service invocation - FDS is better* for the former, remoting for the later. -- Tom Chiverton This email is sent for and on behalf of Halliwells LLP. Halliwells LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales under registered number OC307980 whose registered office address is at St James's Court Brown Street Manchester M2 2JF. A list of members is available for inspection at the registered office. Any reference to a partner in relation to Halliwells LLP means a member of Halliwells LLP. Regulated by the Law Society. CONFIDENTIALITY This email is intended only for the use of the addressee named above and may be confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the addressee you must not read it and must not use any information contained in nor copy it nor inform any person other than Halliwells LLP or the addressee of its existence or contents. If you have received this email in error please delete it and notify Halliwells LLP IT Department on 0870 365 8008. For more information about Halliwells LLP visit www.halliwells.com. -- Flexcoders Mailing List FAQ: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/flexcoders/files/flexcodersFAQ.txt Search Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com Yahoo! Groups Links -- Flexcoders Mailing List FAQ: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/flexcoders/files/flexcodersFAQ.txt Search Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/flexcoders/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [flexcoders] Still Fuzzy about Flex 2.0 and CFCs
yeah and need CF 7.0.2no workie on CF 6Remoting works a treat. DKOn 7/24/06, Battershall, Jeff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:OK, gotcha, but I suppose the other issue is what version of AMF is availble server-side.I'm getting the impression that AMF3 is necessaryboth on the client and server in Flex 2.0 - am I right about that?Jeff-Original Message-From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com [mailto:flexcoders@yahoogroups.com] OnBehalf Of Tom ChivertonSent: Monday, July 24, 2006 11:20 AMTo: flexcoders@yahoogroups.comSubject: Re: [flexcoders] Still Fuzzy about Flex 2.0 and CFCsOn Monday 24 July 2006 15:02, Battershall, Jeff wrote: Obviously, FDS would be a preferred way of integrating with CF if available,Dunno about that.There is a difference betwen granular record editing, and serviceinvocation -FDS is better* for the former, remoting for the later.--Tom Chiverton This email is sent for and on behalf of Halliwells LLP.Halliwells LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in Englandand Wales under registered number OC307980 whose registered office address is at St James's Court Brown Street Manchester M2 2JF.A listof members is available for inspection at the registered office. Anyreference to a partner in relation to Halliwells LLP means a member of Halliwells LLP. Regulated by the Law Society.CONFIDENTIALITYThis email is intended only for the use of the addressee named above andmay be confidential or legally privileged.If you are not the addressee you must not read it and must not use any information contained in norcopy it nor inform any person other than Halliwells LLP or the addresseeof its existence or contents.If you have received this email in error please delete it and notify Halliwells LLP IT Department on 0870 3658008.For more information about Halliwells LLP visit www.halliwells.com.-- Flexcoders Mailing ListFAQ: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/flexcoders/files/flexcodersFAQ.txtSearch Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/flexcoders%40yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links--Flexcoders Mailing ListFAQ: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/flexcoders/files/flexcodersFAQ.txtSearch Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/flexcoders%40yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to:http://groups.yahoo.com/group/flexcoders/* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ -- Douglas Knudsenhttp://www.cubicleman.comthis is my signature, like it? __._,_.___ -- Flexcoders Mailing List FAQ: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/flexcoders/files/flexcodersFAQ.txt Search Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "flexcoders" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. __,_._,___
Re: [flexcoders] Still Fuzzy about Flex 2.0 and CFCs
Flex 2 can utilize AMF0 or AMF3; you just set the ObjectEncoding. CF 7.0.2 can use AMF3; anything before only AMF0. Flex 2 can talk to both old CF and new CF. Talking to the old sucks from a client-side perspective. - Original Message - From: Battershall, Jeff [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 12:08 PM Subject: RE: [flexcoders] Still Fuzzy about Flex 2.0 and CFCs OK, gotcha, but I suppose the other issue is what version of AMF is availble server-side. I'm getting the impression that AMF3 is necessary both on the client and server in Flex 2.0 - am I right about that? Jeff -Original Message- From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom Chiverton Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 11:20 AM To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [flexcoders] Still Fuzzy about Flex 2.0 and CFCs On Monday 24 July 2006 15:02, Battershall, Jeff wrote: Obviously, FDS would be a preferred way of integrating with CF if available, Dunno about that. There is a difference betwen granular record editing, and service invocation - FDS is better* for the former, remoting for the later. -- Tom Chiverton This email is sent for and on behalf of Halliwells LLP. Halliwells LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales under registered number OC307980 whose registered office address is at St James's Court Brown Street Manchester M2 2JF. A list of members is available for inspection at the registered office. Any reference to a partner in relation to Halliwells LLP means a member of Halliwells LLP. Regulated by the Law Society. CONFIDENTIALITY This email is intended only for the use of the addressee named above and may be confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the addressee you must not read it and must not use any information contained in nor copy it nor inform any person other than Halliwells LLP or the addressee of its existence or contents. If you have received this email in error please delete it and notify Halliwells LLP IT Department on 0870 365 8008. For more information about Halliwells LLP visit www.halliwells.com. -- Flexcoders Mailing List FAQ: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/flexcoders/files/flexcodersFAQ.txt Search Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com Yahoo! Groups Links -- Flexcoders Mailing List FAQ: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/flexcoders/files/flexcodersFAQ.txt Search Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com Yahoo! Groups Links -- Flexcoders Mailing List FAQ: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/flexcoders/files/flexcodersFAQ.txt Search Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/flexcoders/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
RE: [flexcoders] Still Fuzzy about Flex 2.0 and CFCs
Jessie, When you say, talking to the old sucks from a client-side perspective are we talking performance or the ability to pass custom objects or what? Jeff -Original Message- From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of JesterXL Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 12:20 PM To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [flexcoders] Still Fuzzy about Flex 2.0 and CFCs Flex 2 can utilize AMF0 or AMF3; you just set the ObjectEncoding. CF 7.0.2 can use AMF3; anything before only AMF0. Flex 2 can talk to both old CF and new CF. Talking to the old sucks from a client-side perspective. - Original Message - From: Battershall, Jeff [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 12:08 PM Subject: RE: [flexcoders] Still Fuzzy about Flex 2.0 and CFCs OK, gotcha, but I suppose the other issue is what version of AMF is availble server-side. I'm getting the impression that AMF3 is necessary both on the client and server in Flex 2.0 - am I right about that? Jeff -Original Message- From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom Chiverton Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 11:20 AM To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [flexcoders] Still Fuzzy about Flex 2.0 and CFCs On Monday 24 July 2006 15:02, Battershall, Jeff wrote: Obviously, FDS would be a preferred way of integrating with CF if available, Dunno about that. There is a difference betwen granular record editing, and service invocation - FDS is better* for the former, remoting for the later. -- Tom Chiverton This email is sent for and on behalf of Halliwells LLP. Halliwells LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales under registered number OC307980 whose registered office address is at St James's Court Brown Street Manchester M2 2JF. A list of members is available for inspection at the registered office. Any reference to a partner in relation to Halliwells LLP means a member of Halliwells LLP. Regulated by the Law Society. CONFIDENTIALITY This email is intended only for the use of the addressee named above and may be confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the addressee you must not read it and must not use any information contained in nor copy it nor inform any person other than Halliwells LLP or the addressee of its existence or contents. If you have received this email in error please delete it and notify Halliwells LLP IT Department on 0870 365 8008. For more information about Halliwells LLP visit www.halliwells.com. -- Flexcoders Mailing List FAQ: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/flexcoders/files/flexcodersFAQ.txt Search Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com Yahoo! Groups Links -- Flexcoders Mailing List FAQ: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/flexcoders/files/flexcodersFAQ.txt Search Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com Yahoo! Groups Links -- Flexcoders Mailing List FAQ: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/flexcoders/files/flexcodersFAQ.txt Search Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com Yahoo! Groups Links -- Flexcoders Mailing List FAQ: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/flexcoders/files/flexcodersFAQ.txt Search Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/flexcoders/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [flexcoders] Still Fuzzy about Flex 2.0 and CFCs
Ability to pass custom objects. I've written over 800 lines of code for Factories to convert CFC structs to ValueObjects in the past 6 months. It sucks, is a pain in the ass, and it sucks... did I mention I hate debugging data-type conversions? I'm sure with AMF3's 30-50% reducation in filesize over the wire vs. AMF0, performance would be better too. ColdFusion 7.0.2, 4 teh w1n!!! - Original Message - From: Battershall, Jeff [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 12:40 PM Subject: RE: [flexcoders] Still Fuzzy about Flex 2.0 and CFCs Jessie, When you say, talking to the old sucks from a client-side perspective are we talking performance or the ability to pass custom objects or what? Jeff -Original Message- From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of JesterXL Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 12:20 PM To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [flexcoders] Still Fuzzy about Flex 2.0 and CFCs Flex 2 can utilize AMF0 or AMF3; you just set the ObjectEncoding. CF 7.0.2 can use AMF3; anything before only AMF0. Flex 2 can talk to both old CF and new CF. Talking to the old sucks from a client-side perspective. - Original Message - From: Battershall, Jeff [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 12:08 PM Subject: RE: [flexcoders] Still Fuzzy about Flex 2.0 and CFCs OK, gotcha, but I suppose the other issue is what version of AMF is availble server-side. I'm getting the impression that AMF3 is necessary both on the client and server in Flex 2.0 - am I right about that? Jeff -Original Message- From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom Chiverton Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 11:20 AM To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [flexcoders] Still Fuzzy about Flex 2.0 and CFCs On Monday 24 July 2006 15:02, Battershall, Jeff wrote: Obviously, FDS would be a preferred way of integrating with CF if available, Dunno about that. There is a difference betwen granular record editing, and service invocation - FDS is better* for the former, remoting for the later. -- Tom Chiverton This email is sent for and on behalf of Halliwells LLP. Halliwells LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales under registered number OC307980 whose registered office address is at St James's Court Brown Street Manchester M2 2JF. A list of members is available for inspection at the registered office. Any reference to a partner in relation to Halliwells LLP means a member of Halliwells LLP. Regulated by the Law Society. CONFIDENTIALITY This email is intended only for the use of the addressee named above and may be confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the addressee you must not read it and must not use any information contained in nor copy it nor inform any person other than Halliwells LLP or the addressee of its existence or contents. If you have received this email in error please delete it and notify Halliwells LLP IT Department on 0870 365 8008. For more information about Halliwells LLP visit www.halliwells.com. -- Flexcoders Mailing List FAQ: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/flexcoders/files/flexcodersFAQ.txt Search Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com Yahoo! Groups Links -- Flexcoders Mailing List FAQ: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/flexcoders/files/flexcodersFAQ.txt Search Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com Yahoo! Groups Links -- Flexcoders Mailing List FAQ: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/flexcoders/files/flexcodersFAQ.txt Search Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com Yahoo! Groups Links -- Flexcoders Mailing List FAQ: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/flexcoders/files/flexcodersFAQ.txt Search Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com Yahoo! Groups Links Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Yahoo! Groups gets a make over. See the new email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/XISQkA/lOaOAA/yQLSAA/nhFolB/TM ~- -- Flexcoders Mailing List FAQ: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/flexcoders/files/flexcodersFAQ.txt Search Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/flexcoders/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
RE: [flexcoders] Still Fuzzy about Flex 2.0 and CFCs
Jessie, I hear you on this - I've been dealing with the same sort of thing myself, but I have a client who is looking for the low cost of entry solution and CF7 upgrade and FDS would appear to be out of the question. That's excellent that you can set encoding however - that opens things up for this project. Jeff -Original Message- From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of JesterXL Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 12:46 PM To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [flexcoders] Still Fuzzy about Flex 2.0 and CFCs Ability to pass custom objects. I've written over 800 lines of code for Factories to convert CFC structs to ValueObjects in the past 6 months. It sucks, is a pain in the ass, and it sucks... did I mention I hate debugging data-type conversions? I'm sure with AMF3's 30-50% reducation in filesize over the wire vs. AMF0, performance would be better too. ColdFusion 7.0.2, 4 teh w1n!!! - Original Message - From: Battershall, Jeff [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 12:40 PM Subject: RE: [flexcoders] Still Fuzzy about Flex 2.0 and CFCs Jessie, When you say, talking to the old sucks from a client-side perspective are we talking performance or the ability to pass custom objects or what? Jeff -Original Message- From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of JesterXL Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 12:20 PM To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [flexcoders] Still Fuzzy about Flex 2.0 and CFCs Flex 2 can utilize AMF0 or AMF3; you just set the ObjectEncoding. CF 7.0.2 can use AMF3; anything before only AMF0. Flex 2 can talk to both old CF and new CF. Talking to the old sucks from a client-side perspective. - Original Message - From: Battershall, Jeff [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 12:08 PM Subject: RE: [flexcoders] Still Fuzzy about Flex 2.0 and CFCs OK, gotcha, but I suppose the other issue is what version of AMF is availble server-side. I'm getting the impression that AMF3 is necessary both on the client and server in Flex 2.0 - am I right about that? Jeff -Original Message- From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom Chiverton Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 11:20 AM To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [flexcoders] Still Fuzzy about Flex 2.0 and CFCs On Monday 24 July 2006 15:02, Battershall, Jeff wrote: Obviously, FDS would be a preferred way of integrating with CF if available, Dunno about that. There is a difference betwen granular record editing, and service invocation - FDS is better* for the former, remoting for the later. -- Tom Chiverton This email is sent for and on behalf of Halliwells LLP. Halliwells LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales under registered number OC307980 whose registered office address is at St James's Court Brown Street Manchester M2 2JF. A list of members is available for inspection at the registered office. Any reference to a partner in relation to Halliwells LLP means a member of Halliwells LLP. Regulated by the Law Society. CONFIDENTIALITY This email is intended only for the use of the addressee named above and may be confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the addressee you must not read it and must not use any information contained in nor copy it nor inform any person other than Halliwells LLP or the addressee of its existence or contents. If you have received this email in error please delete it and notify Halliwells LLP IT Department on 0870 365 8008. For more information about Halliwells LLP visit www.halliwells.com. -- Flexcoders Mailing List FAQ: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/flexcoders/files/flexcodersFAQ.txt Search Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com Yahoo! Groups Links -- Flexcoders Mailing List FAQ: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/flexcoders/files/flexcodersFAQ.txt Search Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com Yahoo! Groups Links -- Flexcoders Mailing List FAQ: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/flexcoders/files/flexcodersFAQ.txt Search Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com Yahoo! Groups Links -- Flexcoders Mailing List FAQ: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/flexcoders/files/flexcodersFAQ.txt Search Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com Yahoo! Groups Links -- Flexcoders Mailing List FAQ: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/flexcoders/files/flexcodersFAQ.txt Search Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com Yahoo! Groups Links Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Something is new at Yahoo! Groups. Check out the enhanced email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/SISQkA/gOaOAA/yQLSAA/nhFolB/TM
Re: [flexcoders] Still Fuzzy about Flex 2.0 and CFCs
Just to be clear, you don't need FDS to use AMF3 ColdFusion's ValueObjects, only CF 7.0.2. I'm with you on price, though. They'll end up paying more in the end as you spend copious amounts of time writing ValueObject conversion code, and debugging string vs. number conversion errors, but it's hard to justify without someone who can clearly articulate to the client by spending more money up front, they'll save money in the end. - Original Message - From: Battershall, Jeff [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 12:54 PM Subject: RE: [flexcoders] Still Fuzzy about Flex 2.0 and CFCs Jessie, I hear you on this - I've been dealing with the same sort of thing myself, but I have a client who is looking for the low cost of entry solution and CF7 upgrade and FDS would appear to be out of the question. That's excellent that you can set encoding however - that opens things up for this project. Jeff -Original Message- From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of JesterXL Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 12:46 PM To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [flexcoders] Still Fuzzy about Flex 2.0 and CFCs Ability to pass custom objects. I've written over 800 lines of code for Factories to convert CFC structs to ValueObjects in the past 6 months. It sucks, is a pain in the ass, and it sucks... did I mention I hate debugging data-type conversions? I'm sure with AMF3's 30-50% reducation in filesize over the wire vs. AMF0, performance would be better too. ColdFusion 7.0.2, 4 teh w1n!!! - Original Message - From: Battershall, Jeff [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 12:40 PM Subject: RE: [flexcoders] Still Fuzzy about Flex 2.0 and CFCs Jessie, When you say, talking to the old sucks from a client-side perspective are we talking performance or the ability to pass custom objects or what? Jeff -Original Message- From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of JesterXL Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 12:20 PM To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [flexcoders] Still Fuzzy about Flex 2.0 and CFCs Flex 2 can utilize AMF0 or AMF3; you just set the ObjectEncoding. CF 7.0.2 can use AMF3; anything before only AMF0. Flex 2 can talk to both old CF and new CF. Talking to the old sucks from a client-side perspective. - Original Message - From: Battershall, Jeff [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 12:08 PM Subject: RE: [flexcoders] Still Fuzzy about Flex 2.0 and CFCs OK, gotcha, but I suppose the other issue is what version of AMF is availble server-side. I'm getting the impression that AMF3 is necessary both on the client and server in Flex 2.0 - am I right about that? Jeff -Original Message- From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom Chiverton Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 11:20 AM To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [flexcoders] Still Fuzzy about Flex 2.0 and CFCs On Monday 24 July 2006 15:02, Battershall, Jeff wrote: Obviously, FDS would be a preferred way of integrating with CF if available, Dunno about that. There is a difference betwen granular record editing, and service invocation - FDS is better* for the former, remoting for the later. -- Tom Chiverton This email is sent for and on behalf of Halliwells LLP. Halliwells LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales under registered number OC307980 whose registered office address is at St James's Court Brown Street Manchester M2 2JF. A list of members is available for inspection at the registered office. Any reference to a partner in relation to Halliwells LLP means a member of Halliwells LLP. Regulated by the Law Society. CONFIDENTIALITY This email is intended only for the use of the addressee named above and may be confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the addressee you must not read it and must not use any information contained in nor copy it nor inform any person other than Halliwells LLP or the addressee of its existence or contents. If you have received this email in error please delete it and notify Halliwells LLP IT Department on 0870 365 8008. For more information about Halliwells LLP visit www.halliwells.com. -- Flexcoders Mailing List FAQ: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/flexcoders/files/flexcodersFAQ.txt Search Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com Yahoo! Groups Links -- Flexcoders Mailing List FAQ: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/flexcoders/files/flexcodersFAQ.txt Search Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com Yahoo! Groups Links -- Flexcoders Mailing List FAQ: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/flexcoders/files/flexcodersFAQ.txt Search Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com Yahoo
RE: [flexcoders] Still Fuzzy about Flex 2.0 and CFCs
Jessie, Thanks for the clarification. What I do not see in the Flex2 docs is the ability to use Remote object without FDS. Would you have to write your own custom class to do your remoting calls? I've done such in Flash. Jeff -Original Message- From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of JesterXL Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 1:02 PM To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [flexcoders] Still Fuzzy about Flex 2.0 and CFCs Just to be clear, you don't need FDS to use AMF3 ColdFusion's ValueObjects, only CF 7.0.2. I'm with you on price, though. They'll end up paying more in the end as you spend copious amounts of time writing ValueObject conversion code, and debugging string vs. number conversion errors, but it's hard to justify without someone who can clearly articulate to the client by spending more money up front, they'll save money in the end. - Original Message - From: Battershall, Jeff [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 12:54 PM Subject: RE: [flexcoders] Still Fuzzy about Flex 2.0 and CFCs Jessie, I hear you on this - I've been dealing with the same sort of thing myself, but I have a client who is looking for the low cost of entry solution and CF7 upgrade and FDS would appear to be out of the question. That's excellent that you can set encoding however - that opens things up for this project. Jeff -Original Message- From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of JesterXL Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 12:46 PM To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [flexcoders] Still Fuzzy about Flex 2.0 and CFCs Ability to pass custom objects. I've written over 800 lines of code for Factories to convert CFC structs to ValueObjects in the past 6 months. It sucks, is a pain in the ass, and it sucks... did I mention I hate debugging data-type conversions? I'm sure with AMF3's 30-50% reducation in filesize over the wire vs. AMF0, performance would be better too. ColdFusion 7.0.2, 4 teh w1n!!! - Original Message - From: Battershall, Jeff [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 12:40 PM Subject: RE: [flexcoders] Still Fuzzy about Flex 2.0 and CFCs Jessie, When you say, talking to the old sucks from a client-side perspective are we talking performance or the ability to pass custom objects or what? Jeff -Original Message- From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of JesterXL Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 12:20 PM To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [flexcoders] Still Fuzzy about Flex 2.0 and CFCs Flex 2 can utilize AMF0 or AMF3; you just set the ObjectEncoding. CF 7.0.2 can use AMF3; anything before only AMF0. Flex 2 can talk to both old CF and new CF. Talking to the old sucks from a client-side perspective. - Original Message - From: Battershall, Jeff [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 12:08 PM Subject: RE: [flexcoders] Still Fuzzy about Flex 2.0 and CFCs OK, gotcha, but I suppose the other issue is what version of AMF is availble server-side. I'm getting the impression that AMF3 is necessary both on the client and server in Flex 2.0 - am I right about that? Jeff -Original Message- From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom Chiverton Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 11:20 AM To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [flexcoders] Still Fuzzy about Flex 2.0 and CFCs On Monday 24 July 2006 15:02, Battershall, Jeff wrote: Obviously, FDS would be a preferred way of integrating with CF if available, Dunno about that. There is a difference betwen granular record editing, and service invocation - FDS is better* for the former, remoting for the later. -- Tom Chiverton This email is sent for and on behalf of Halliwells LLP. Halliwells LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales under registered number OC307980 whose registered office address is at St James's Court Brown Street Manchester M2 2JF. A list of members is available for inspection at the registered office. Any reference to a partner in relation to Halliwells LLP means a member of Halliwells LLP. Regulated by the Law Society. CONFIDENTIALITY This email is intended only for the use of the addressee named above and may be confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the addressee you must not read it and must not use any information contained in nor copy it nor inform any person other than Halliwells LLP or the addressee of its existence or contents. If you have received this email in error please delete it and notify Halliwells LLP IT Department on 0870 365 8008. For more information about Halliwells LLP visit www.halliwells.com. -- Flexcoders Mailing List FAQ: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/flexcoders/files/flexcodersFAQ.txt Search
Re: [flexcoders] Still Fuzzy about Flex 2.0 and CFCs
Let's define some terms to make sure we're on the same page. Flash Remoting is 2 technologies. First, the client side portion is the ability for the Flash Player to send binary data objects via binary to and from the server. It can serialize deserialize these objects to from the AMF0 AMF3 binary format. It sends this information via the rtmp TCP/IP proprietary protocol that is built into the Flash Player. Second, Flash Remoting is the server-side portion that can speak understand AMF0 and/or AMF3. This allows the client and server to exchange not only native data-types that each can understand, but also custom ValueObjects, or Class instances. So a String in Flash is a String in CF, an Array in Flash is a List in Java for example. You can also utilize custom classes if the class is registered via Object.registerClass (forget what it is in Flex 2). ColdFusion pre 7.0.2 has had the ability to speak AMF (aka the ability to utilize Remoting). It, however, had some f'ed up rules and weird intracacies on getting it to work, and could not use custom classes, only strings, numbers, arrays, and vanilla Objects, and only unders certain conditions could it use Objects (HashMaps). As such, since the Flash Player 9 is backwards compatible via ObjectEncoding, Flex 2 can still talk to older CFC's via Flash Remoting. Thus, you can still use RemoteObject, although, I haven't tested because for an existing project, both CF Flex will be upgraded, negating the need to worry about AMF0. RemoteObject in Flex 1.5 and below is really a wrapper class for Remoting. Where Flash IDE Flash Player 8 is concerned HTTPService is the equivalent to LoadVars, WebService the same, and RemoteObject is equivalent to Service. Granted, Flex' versions have significantly more helpful features added to them like the built-in server proxy to get around Flash Player's security sandbox, the busy cursor, etc. Make no mistake, though, RemoteObject IS Flash Remoting, and Flash Remoting IS RemoteObject. If your server doesn't speak Flash Remoting, you can't use RemoteObject. I believe in my tests with AMFPHP that RemoteObject does support setting it's encoding to AMF0; 70% sure, beta 1 code, and haven't looked at it in awhile. FDS, or Flex Data Services, is seperate from ColdFusion. It's basically Flex Server 2, with a bunch of new features. The fact that it has Flash Remoting is really a fallback technology, and not an intrinsic feature. For example, you're SUPPOSED to use it with JMS, or your custom messaging solution, allowing real-time communication. The AMF XML fallbacks, both polling, are merely used when the JMS service is down. So, you don't get FDS to get Remoting, you get FDS to get the real-time messaging capabilities. You're goal is not to use FDS to make service calls, your goal is to get Data synchronization, clustering, real-time push, and all those other things Steven Webster articualted in an earlier email thread (sorry don't have the link handy). Therefore, if you have no intention of using Hiberate, and real-time communication, there is no point for FDS if all you want to do is call CFC remote methods. Make sense? Did I answer your questions? - Original Message - From: Battershall, Jeff [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 1:05 PM Subject: RE: [flexcoders] Still Fuzzy about Flex 2.0 and CFCs Jessie, Thanks for the clarification. What I do not see in the Flex2 docs is the ability to use Remote object without FDS. Would you have to write your own custom class to do your remoting calls? I've done such in Flash. Jeff -Original Message- From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of JesterXL Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 1:02 PM To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [flexcoders] Still Fuzzy about Flex 2.0 and CFCs Just to be clear, you don't need FDS to use AMF3 ColdFusion's ValueObjects, only CF 7.0.2. I'm with you on price, though. They'll end up paying more in the end as you spend copious amounts of time writing ValueObject conversion code, and debugging string vs. number conversion errors, but it's hard to justify without someone who can clearly articulate to the client by spending more money up front, they'll save money in the end. - Original Message - From: Battershall, Jeff [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 12:54 PM Subject: RE: [flexcoders] Still Fuzzy about Flex 2.0 and CFCs Jessie, I hear you on this - I've been dealing with the same sort of thing myself, but I have a client who is looking for the low cost of entry solution and CF7 upgrade and FDS would appear to be out of the question. That's excellent that you can set encoding however - that opens things up for this project. Jeff -Original Message- From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of JesterXL Sent: Monday
Re: [flexcoders] Still Fuzzy about Flex 2.0 and CFCs
RemoteObject is certainly there and only requires a remoting gateway.http://livedocs.macromedia.com/flex/2/langref/mx/rpc/remoting/mxml/RemoteObject.html You can use Flash Remoting or the Flash Gateway in CFMX or OpenAMF. I have not used OpenAMF with the AMF3, so I'm not positive that it works. I remember seeing posting that it does though.HTHRegards, Rob RusherOn 7/24/06, Battershall, Jeff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jessie, Thanks for the clarification. What I do not see in the Flex2 docs is the ability to use Remote object without FDS. Would you have to write your own custom class to do your remoting calls? I've done such in Flash. Jeff -Original Message- From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com [mailto: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of JesterXL Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 1:02 PM To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [flexcoders] Still Fuzzy about Flex 2.0 and CFCs Just to be clear, you don't need FDS to use AMF3 ColdFusion's ValueObjects, only CF 7.0.2. I'm with you on price, though. They'll end up paying more in the end as you spend copious amounts of time writing ValueObject conversion code, and debugging string vs. number conversion errors, but it's hard to justify without someone who can clearly articulate to the client by spending more money up front, they'll save money in the end. - Original Message - From: Battershall, Jeff [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 12:54 PM Subject: RE: [flexcoders] Still Fuzzy about Flex 2.0 and CFCs Jessie, I hear you on this - I've been dealing with the same sort of thing myself, but I have a client who is looking for the low cost of entry solution and CF7 upgrade and FDS would appear to be out of the question. That's excellent that you can set encoding however - that opens things up for this project. Jeff -Original Message- From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com [mailto: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of JesterXL Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 12:46 PM To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [flexcoders] Still Fuzzy about Flex 2.0 and CFCs Ability to pass custom objects. I've written over 800 lines of code for Factories to convert CFC structs to ValueObjects in the past 6 months. It sucks, is a pain in the ass, and it sucks... did I mention I hate debugging data-type conversions? I'm sure with AMF3's 30-50% reducation in filesize over the wire vs. AMF0, performance would be better too. ColdFusion 7.0.2, 4 teh w1n!!! - Original Message - From: Battershall, Jeff [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 12:40 PM Subject: RE: [flexcoders] Still Fuzzy about Flex 2.0 and CFCs Jessie, When you say, talking to the old sucks from a client-side perspective are we talking performance or the ability to pass custom objects or what? Jeff -Original Message- From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com [mailto: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of JesterXL Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 12:20 PM To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [flexcoders] Still Fuzzy about Flex 2.0 and CFCs Flex 2 can utilize AMF0 or AMF3; you just set the ObjectEncoding. CF 7.0.2 can use AMF3; anything before only AMF0. Flex 2 can talk to both old CF and new CF. Talking to the old sucks from a client-side perspective. - Original Message - From: Battershall, Jeff [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 12:08 PM Subject: RE: [flexcoders] Still Fuzzy about Flex 2.0 and CFCs OK, gotcha, but I suppose the other issue is what version of AMF is availble server-side. I'm getting the impression that AMF3 is necessary both on the client and server in Flex 2.0 - am I right about that? Jeff -Original Message- From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com [mailto: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Tom Chiverton Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 11:20 AM To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [flexcoders] Still Fuzzy about Flex 2.0 and CFCs On Monday 24 July 2006 15:02, Battershall, Jeff wrote: Obviously, FDS would be a preferred way of integrating with CF if available, Dunno about that. There is a difference betwen granular record editing, and service invocation - FDS is better* for the former, remoting for the later. -- Tom Chiverton This email is sent for and on behalf of Halliwells LLP. Halliwells LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales under registered number OC307980 whose registered office address is at St James's Court Brown Street Manchester M2 2JF. A list of members is available for inspection at the registered office. Any reference to a partner in relation to Halliwells LLP means a member of Halliwells LLP. Regulated by the Law Society. CONFIDENTIALITY This email is intended only for the use of the addressee named above and may be confidential or legally privileged
RE: [flexcoders] Still Fuzzy about Flex 2.0 and CFCs
Jessie, Thanks for takng the time to craft your excellent explanation. In the Flex2 docs it makes a big deal about how RemoteObject is only available via FDS. But I completely understand that RemoteObject is just a wrapper for remoting and in fact I kinda treated it that way in Flex 1.5 by creating a custom AS class to persist the created service and re-use it repeatedly. Jeff -Original Message- From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of JesterXL Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 1:18 PM To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [flexcoders] Still Fuzzy about Flex 2.0 and CFCs Let's define some terms to make sure we're on the same page. Flash Remoting is 2 technologies. First, the client side portion is the ability for the Flash Player to send binary data objects via binary to and from the server. It can serialize deserialize these objects to from the AMF0 AMF3 binary format. It sends this information via the rtmp TCP/IP proprietary protocol that is built into the Flash Player. Second, Flash Remoting is the server-side portion that can speak understand AMF0 and/or AMF3. This allows the client and server to exchange not only native data-types that each can understand, but also custom ValueObjects, or Class instances. So a String in Flash is a String in CF, an Array in Flash is a List in Java for example. You can also utilize custom classes if the class is registered via Object.registerClass (forget what it is in Flex 2). ColdFusion pre 7.0.2 has had the ability to speak AMF (aka the ability to utilize Remoting). It, however, had some f'ed up rules and weird intracacies on getting it to work, and could not use custom classes, only strings, numbers, arrays, and vanilla Objects, and only unders certain conditions could it use Objects (HashMaps). As such, since the Flash Player 9 is backwards compatible via ObjectEncoding, Flex 2 can still talk to older CFC's via Flash Remoting. Thus, you can still use RemoteObject, although, I haven't tested because for an existing project, both CF Flex will be upgraded, negating the need to worry about AMF0. RemoteObject in Flex 1.5 and below is really a wrapper class for Remoting. Where Flash IDE Flash Player 8 is concerned HTTPService is the equivalent to LoadVars, WebService the same, and RemoteObject is equivalent to Service. Granted, Flex' versions have significantly more helpful features added to them like the built-in server proxy to get around Flash Player's security sandbox, the busy cursor, etc. Make no mistake, though, RemoteObject IS Flash Remoting, and Flash Remoting IS RemoteObject. If your server doesn't speak Flash Remoting, you can't use RemoteObject. I believe in my tests with AMFPHP that RemoteObject does support setting it's encoding to AMF0; 70% sure, beta 1 code, and haven't looked at it in awhile. FDS, or Flex Data Services, is seperate from ColdFusion. It's basically Flex Server 2, with a bunch of new features. The fact that it has Flash Remoting is really a fallback technology, and not an intrinsic feature. For example, you're SUPPOSED to use it with JMS, or your custom messaging solution, allowing real-time communication. The AMF XML fallbacks, both polling, are merely used when the JMS service is down. So, you don't get FDS to get Remoting, you get FDS to get the real-time messaging capabilities. You're goal is not to use FDS to make service calls, your goal is to get Data synchronization, clustering, real-time push, and all those other things Steven Webster articualted in an earlier email thread (sorry don't have the link handy). Therefore, if you have no intention of using Hiberate, and real-time communication, there is no point for FDS if all you want to do is call CFC remote methods. Make sense? Did I answer your questions? - Original Message - From: Battershall, Jeff [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 1:05 PM Subject: RE: [flexcoders] Still Fuzzy about Flex 2.0 and CFCs Jessie, Thanks for the clarification. What I do not see in the Flex2 docs is the ability to use Remote object without FDS. Would you have to write your own custom class to do your remoting calls? I've done such in Flash. Jeff -Original Message- From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of JesterXL Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 1:02 PM To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [flexcoders] Still Fuzzy about Flex 2.0 and CFCs Just to be clear, you don't need FDS to use AMF3 ColdFusion's ValueObjects, only CF 7.0.2. I'm with you on price, though. They'll end up paying more in the end as you spend copious amounts of time writing ValueObject conversion code, and debugging string vs. number conversion errors, but it's hard to justify without someone who can clearly articulate to the client by spending more money up front, they'll save money in the end. - Original Message
Re: [flexcoders] Still Fuzzy about Flex 2.0 and CFCs
Jeff,You must have CF 7 and run the 7.0.2 updater for ColdFusion Flash remoting to work with Flex 2.You do use RemoteObject: mx:RemoteObject id=myService destination=ColdFusion source=cfcName result=handleRemotingResult(event) showBusyCursor=true/Hit me back offlist and I will send you a few code examples.hth,Mike On 7/24/06, Battershall, Jeff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Obviously, FDS would be a preferred way of integrating with CF if available, but if it is not, what options exist? 1) HTTP Service - ok. 2) Web Service - ok. 3) Remoting? This is where I'm not quite getting it. Can you still use remoting to a server running CFMX 6.1 from Flex 2.0? If so, are you using remote object? Jeff Battershall Application Architect Dow Jones Indexes [EMAIL PROTECTED] (609) 520-5637 (p) (484) 477-9900 (c) -- Mike--http://www.mikebritton.comhttp://www.mikenkim.com __._,_.___ -- Flexcoders Mailing List FAQ: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/flexcoders/files/flexcodersFAQ.txt Search Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com SPONSORED LINKS Web site design development Computer software development Software design and development Macromedia flex Software development best practice YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "flexcoders" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. __,_._,___
