...@cfwebtools.com
Skype: markakruger
-Original Message-
From: Nathan Strutz [mailto:str...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2012 11:18 AM
To: cf-talk
Subject: Re: after a long hiatus back to talk about frameworks
I'm not afraid to poke the stormcloud :)
Fusebox went unsupported for a number
...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2012 11:18 AM
To: cf-talk
Subject: Re: after a long hiatus back to talk about frameworks
I'm not afraid to poke the stormcloud :)
Fusebox went unsupported for a number of years and there was some drama
about who owned the source code (it predates modern
back to talk about frameworks
I'm not afraid to poke the stormcloud :)
Fusebox went unsupported for a number of years and there was some drama
about who owned the source code (it predates modern open source
licenses).
There was a failed fork and then the community stepped in and created
: markakruger
-Original Message-
From: Nathan Strutz [mailto:str...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2012 11:18 AM
To: cf-talk
Subject: Re: after a long hiatus back to talk about frameworks
I'm not afraid to poke the stormcloud :)
Fusebox went unsupported
: Nathan Strutz [mailto:str...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2012 11:18 AM
To: cf-talk
Subject: Re: after a long hiatus back to talk about frameworks
I'm not afraid to poke the stormcloud :)
Fusebox went unsupported for a number of years and there was some
drama
But my approach to frameworks has been to 'wait and see'. Because I don't like
wasting my time. I need to do something on a daily basis other wise it wont
stick.
I delayed learning any Framework and then just learned fusebox at a
job/contract.
I was going to ask, which frameworks
I am still seeing a lot of legacy apps using fusebox, in perm jobs and
contracts, so no harm in knowing it.
On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 5:20 PM, Don danfar...@hotmail.com wrote:
But my approach to frameworks has been to 'wait and see'. Because I don't
like wasting my time. I need to do something
Frameworks exist because they help solve problems - typically problems
that are common and many people have experienced in the past. These
problems are not going to go away. Yes, a particular framework X may
go away, but learning it will not be a waste of time as you will gain
the experience
) they do or do not
use.
On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 11:20 AM, Don danfar...@hotmail.com wrote:
But my approach to frameworks has been to 'wait and see'. Because I don't
like wasting my time. I need to do something on a daily basis other wise it
wont stick.
I delayed learning any Framework
But focusing on 'which framework is more popular' and 'which framework
may go away' seems a bit silly.
I don't think so. The reason being is that I don't like wasting my time because
if I don't use a thing everyday it doesn't get imprinted. For example - I've
gotten semi proficient in java
My comment still applies. Even if you learn and forget all of those
frameworks in succession, because most of them feature MVC/OO/ORM/etc, that
stuff should stick.
On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 11:46 AM, Don danfar...@hotmail.com wrote:
But focusing on 'which framework is more popular' and 'which
My comment still applies. Even if you learn and forget all of those
frameworks in succession, because most of them feature MVC/OO/ORM/etc, that
stuff should stick.
Yes everyone's comment applies,I was not intending to diminish anyone's
perspective
Right...but...learning a new framework or two, depending on which you
choose and how you use 'em, will make you a better MVC'er, OO'er, ORM'er,
Frameworker, etc...
...if you take my meaning. And most/all of those things are likely to help
you land your next job, regardless of which framework(s)
I know. I was proposing a reason why wasting my time because if I don't
use a thing everyday it doesn't get imprinted might not apply.
On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 11:56 AM, Don danfar...@hotmail.com wrote:
My comment still applies. Even if you learn and forget all of those
frameworks
Frameworks exist because they help solve problems
This is why the best framework is the one you design yourself to solve your
problems.
Solutions for other people's problems ar not always good for you and may even
cause more problems you will ever encounter
For certain breeds of unique problem, that's probably true.
For most breeds of common problem, let's not spend a week or two developing
a custom framework before problem-solving commences.
On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 12:00 PM, wrote:
Frameworks exist because they help solve problems
cfscript and all the other most complex parts of CF,
which rather defeats the point of using CFML doesn't it.
The average newbie to CF really only needs to learn a handful of tags and
functions to do what he needs on a basic site, even CFC's are not required.
The frameworks, OOP and MVC topic really
I may just stick with FB for now, I already am comfortable with it. The path of
least resistance... Lol
~|
Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now!
cfscript and all the other most complex parts of CF,
which rather defeats the point of using CFML doesn't it.
The average newbie to CF really only needs to learn a handful of tags and
functions to do what he needs on a basic site, even CFC's are not required.
The frameworks, OOP and MVC topic really
Russ, did I meet you in the UK a few years ago, you offered me some beer on a
job interview? Lol
~|
Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now!
http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion
Agreed. I'm porting a number of sites to FW/1 on Railo and I've found
the communities and developers for both to be extremely helpful.
Also, in my experience FW/1 is much easier to implement than Fusebox.
On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 9:27 AM, Gerald Guido gerald.gu...@gmail.com wrote:
Many people
to me as a
developer.
Judah
On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 9:49 AM, John M Bliss bliss.j...@gmail.com wrote:
My comment still applies. Even if you learn and forget all of those
frameworks in succession, because most of them feature MVC/OO/ORM/etc, that
stuff should stick
Lol, quite possibly, waz it an interview at loud n clear, the md always
endded up dragging everyone to the pub.
Regards
Russ Michaels
From my mobile
On 9 May 2012 18:24, Don danfar...@hotmail.com wrote:
Russ, did I meet you in the UK a few years ago, you offered me some beer
on a job
I was going to ask, which frameworks are the most popular in terms of
actual employment statistics but even then, it might all be a waste of time
if my next contract doesn't use ( framework x,y, or z ).
Maybe what you are looking for isn't going to be solved by a framework, but
by a better
On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 2:59 PM, Nathan Strutz wrote:
The Model-View-Controller pattern is pretty ideal for web applications, and
is one of the best tools we developers have these days. You can do it
without a framework, it's not hard (
www.dopefly.com/techblog/entry.cfm?entry=307 and
I was going to ask, which frameworks are the most popular in terms of
actual employment statistics but even then, it might all be a waste of time
if my next contract doesn't use ( framework x,y, or z ).
Maybe what you are looking for isn't going to be solved by a framework, but
by a better
Maybe what you are looking for isn't going to be solved by a framework, but
by a better methodology. By far, the most popular way to write web
applications these days, an improvement over the old Fusebox days, and
certainly enabled (and sometimes forced) by all the frameworks, is MVC.
The Model
, an improvement over the old Fusebox days, and
certainly enabled (and sometimes forced) by all the frameworks, is MVC.
The Model-View-Controller pattern is pretty ideal for web applications,
and
is one of the best tools we developers have these days. You can do it
without a framework, it's not hard
Anecdotally:
- http://cfwheels.org
- http://coldbox.org http://www.coldbox.org/
- http://fusebox.org http://www.fusebox.org/
- http://mach-ii.com http://www.mach-ii.com/
- http://fw1.riaforge.org
- http://ontap.riaforge.org
- and others
I recommend picking whichever seems
some resources which may help you getting back into CF
www.cf411.com
www.cfsearch.com
www.cfmldeveloper.com
from these you can most likely find everything else you need
On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 10:36 AM, John M Bliss bliss.j...@gmail.com wrote:
Anecdotally:
- http://cfwheels.org
-
some resources which may help you getting back into CF
www.cf411.com
www.cfsearch.com
www.cfmldeveloper.com
from these you can most likely find everything else you need
thanks guys. Wow, some old names I still remember. =)
I'm not afraid to poke the stormcloud :)
Fusebox went unsupported for a number of years and there was some drama
about who owned the source code (it predates modern open source licenses).
There was a failed fork and then the community stepped in and created a
barrage of better frameworks
Many people believe Framework/1 (fw1.riaforge.org) is the true successor
to
Fusebox.
+1
I ran into this the other day:
CFMeetup 2011_0303 Simple MVC with FW/1, with Daria Norris
http://vimeo.com/21864956
That should get you started with FW/1 in (fairly) short order.
HTH
G!
On Tue, May 8,
Hi, its been a while since I did any CF work. I am wondering what framework
seems to be popular right now.
I did a bit of fusebox and liked it. But am wondering about the others out
there. I noticed CF builder 2 didn't have any support for it as did CFEclipse.
I find that odd. Has FB gone
Can I ask what were the pros and cons of hibernate with CF9 compared
to other frameworks?
I get that for instance coldbox integrates with hibernate but wanted
to hear some feedback from the framework architecture, deployment and
development time was handled.
BT
I assume the other frameworks you're talking about are the MVC frameworks
(ColdBox, Model-Glue, FW/1, Mach-II, etc.)? If so they really have nothing
to do with each other. Some of them (like ColdBox) have optional features
that work with Hibernate, but any of the MVC frameworks will work fine
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 9:15 PM, Judith Dinowitz
jdino...@houseoffusion.com wrote:
From what I can see, the last thing posted on the CFCUnit website is dated
2006. Is CFCUnit still a going concern? What Unit-Testing Frameworks are
people using in the CF community?
As others have said
From what I can see, the last thing posted on the CFCUnit website is dated
2006. Is CFCUnit still a going concern? What Unit-Testing Frameworks are
people using in the CF community?
Judith
~|
Want to reach the ColdFusion
Yes, CFCUnit has not been update for some time.
CFer's have moved to unit testing frameworks such as MXUnit (
http://www.mxunit.org/) for back end testing and have started to use cfSpec
(http://github.com/adelphus/cfspec/) for behavioral front end testing. I'm
sure there are others out
testing frameworks such as MXUnit (
http://www.mxunit.org/) for back end testing and have started to use
cfSpec
(http://github.com/adelphus/cfspec/) for behavioral front end testing. I'm
sure there are others out there, but these are now mentioned more often in
the community.
-Pat (patweb99
:
From what I can see, the last thing posted on the CFCUnit website is dated
2006. Is CFCUnit still a going concern? What Unit-Testing Frameworks are
people using in the CF community?
Judith
~|
Want to reach
http://www.cfconversations.com/index.cfm/2008/10/19/CFConversations-19-Roundtable-6-Controller-based-Frameworks-Part-1
Enjoy!
Sincerely,
Brian Meloche
brianmeloche at gmail dot com
Producer and Host, CFConversations Podcast
http://www.cfconversations.com
Blog: http://www.brianmeloche.com/blog
I've been reading up a bit on stuff like Eclipse, etc and I'm wondering
which way to go.
Flex looks interesting, but until Google fully implemented the indexing of
Flash it's a direction I'm nervous about going in.
I'm currently using Dreamweaver, CFMX 7, MS SQL 2000.
I'd like to take my coding
Hi Jenny,
The onTap framework (in my sig) has a lot of syntactic sugar built in,
so you can build things like dhtml tabsets that are section 508
(accessibility) compliant without any real knowledge of javascript. Most
(all?) other dhtml tabsets you find out there, like the ones in Spry
would
You could look at Dojo, which is a WAI-ARIA compliant (Accessible Rich
Internet Application) DHTML framework.
Frameworks mean many different things in the CF world. We have CF
Frameworks, then there are Ajax Frameworks, Flex Frameworks.
-Original Message-
From: s. isaac dealey [mailto
Thanks for replies ...
I had a look at Eclipse today .. didn't find it as friendly to use as
Dreamweaver, for sure.
I ruled out Flex as it produces Flash.
Maybe there is something that is more business-process oriented.
Jenny
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG.
Version:
On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 10:06 AM, Jenny Gavin-Wear
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I had a look at Eclipse today .. didn't find it as friendly to use as
Dreamweaver, for sure.
That's definitely true. If you are comfortable using DW you don't
necessarily need to change - while there's a lot of
I might be being a complete chump here and not looking at this in the
right way, but bear with me.
Currently I have some apps which use a variety of different
front-controller frameworks (e.g MG:U, Mach-II etc) and work well.
All use coldspring to wire in a centralised domain model which
accesses
On Friday 04 Jan 2008, Neil Middleton wrote:
connect to. However, I want to be able to wire this together using
something like coldspring again so that different endpoints can call
different parts of the domain model depending on who they are and what
they are doing etc.
Have you see the
, 2008 7:37 PM, Neil Middleton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I might be being a complete chump here and not looking at this in the
right way, but bear with me.
Currently I have some apps which use a variety of different
front-controller frameworks (e.g MG:U, Mach-II etc) and work well.
All use
at this in the
right way, but bear with me.
Currently I have some apps which use a variety of different
front-controller frameworks (e.g MG:U, Mach-II etc) and work well.
All use coldspring to wire in a centralised domain model which
accesses the DB.
The concept is based around a core
Neil, you can use a ColdSpring Remote Proxy Bean , ColdBox or create
your own remote facade to invoke whatever you need.
I personally use my remote facades to connect to ColdSpring.
--
João Fernandes
http://www.onflexwithcf.org
http://www.riapt.org
frameworks (e.g MG:U, Mach-II etc) and work well.
All use coldspring to wire in a centralised domain model which
accesses the DB.
The concept is based around a core business with relevant products
that are developed for many customers.
Now, lets say I wanted to put a flex front-end on some
I have some apps which use a variety of different
front-controller frameworks (e.g MG:U, Mach-II etc) and work well.
All use coldspring to wire in a centralised domain model which
accesses the DB.
The concept is based around a core business with relevant products
that are developed
Yes, both ColdBox and Model-Glue added a Flex proxy as a way to wire
in a little Flex - not to create full-blown Flex apps.
If you already have a well-designed model that is independent of the
HTML frameworks then you are most of the way already.
Remember that Flex *is* a framework too so you
Matt Quackenbush wrote:
I should have clarified my question. I completely realize that the 'form'
and 'url' scopes (structs) still exist inside the various frameworks, so I
know that I can directly reference them. However, in an OO world, you're
technically not supposed to reference outside
should have clarified my question. I completely realize that the
'form'
and 'url' scopes (structs) still exist inside the various frameworks, so
I
know that I can directly reference them. However, in an OO world,
you're
technically not supposed to reference outside scopes
On 10/14/07, Dave Watts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Data changes should not be triggered by GET requests.
Whilst I agree and that guides whether I use GET or POST within my UI
(and it's OK to use method=get on forms if they are query-only forms
such as searches), I would question whether it's
Question to Dave: do your applications actually verify that
any data changing requests really use POST?
Hell yeah!
Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
http://www.figleaf.com/
Fig Leaf Software provides the highest caliber vendor-authorized
instruction at our training centers in Washington DC,
I'm aware of this rule, it just doesn't make any sense to me. In fact, if
adhered to it would add a good bit of complexity to otherwise simple apps.
I've seen the Rails folks obsessing about this, where they are forcing some
normal URLs to be POST, and likewise forcing some forms to be GET, for no
I'm with Brian here - I don't see why this is critical. The
only known cause of a problem in this area (that I know of)
is when the Google Accelrator came out and it began auto
firing Delete links in web admins.
Any program that automatically follows links can cause this problem, as long
I'm with Brian here - I don't see why this is critical. The only known
cause of a problem in this area (that I know of) is when the Google
Accelrator came out and it began auto firing Delete links in web
admins.
On 10/15/07, Brian Kotek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm aware of this rule, it just
I'm aware of this rule, it just doesn't make any sense to
me. In fact, if adhered to it would add a good bit of
complexity to otherwise simple apps.
I've seen the Rails folks obsessing about this, where they
are forcing some normal URLs to be POST, and likewise forcing
some forms to be
While I am not religious about it, if you see any url as a potential REST
webservice, separating GET and POST make sense. Of course this apply much
more to public facing urls, les to password protected ones.
Massimo Foti, web-programmer for hire
Tools for ColdFusion
Brian Kotek wrote:
I'm aware of this rule, it just doesn't make any sense to me. In fact, if
adhered to it would add a good bit of complexity to otherwise simple apps.
I don't believe it adds complexity for the developer. Have you ever seen
that popup that says: The page you are trying to view
That's fine, but it doesn't change anything in my mind. Just because a
crawler won't submit a form doesn't mean that a user (or a non-compliant
crawler) won't. It's also not complicated for a user to modify the headers
to issue a post instead of a get or vice versa. The point being, if you have
Sean Corfield wrote:
Suggestion to Matt et al: since all you really need to ensure is that
certain requests came from a POST, you can write a filter (or whatever
equivalent your framework de jour supports) that checks the request
was a POST and encapsulate the logic in that one place (testing
You're proving my point. Going through your app and changing any A HREF
tag that targets a link that changes data on the server to use POST instead
of GET *is* an increase in complexity. And, if I understand you correctly,
you're doing it just to get a pop-up window from your browser? A pop up
Brian Kotek wrote:
You're proving my point. Going through your app and changing any A HREF
tag that targets a link that changes data on the server to use POST instead
of GET *is* an increase in complexity. And, if I understand you correctly,
you're doing it just to get a pop-up window from
I thought that the google web accelerator did all the convincing
anyone needed. If I recall correctly, a lot of intranets had a
problem with it in that lots of GET operations would alter data. The
user would be logged in, and gwa would automatically fetch all GET
links. There'd be no security
Brian Kotek wrote:
That's fine, but it doesn't change anything in my mind. Just because a
crawler won't submit a form doesn't mean that a user (or a non-compliant
crawler) won't. It's also not complicated for a user to modify the headers
to issue a post instead of a get or vice versa. The
Wowsers! Seems I hit on a hot topic.
On 10/15/07, Jochem van Dieten wrote:
Since the answer to both questions is No I will add a third question:
How important is it *really* to know the variable came from a post?
Jochem
I don't allow data altering in my apps via a 'get', especially not
Jochem van Dieten wrote:
Would you do it if it were easier? For a while now I have considered
proposing to the W3 HTML standard committee to add a method attribute
to the href tag so you could also make a normal link fire a post
instead of a get.
Sorry, that should read 'to add a method
Just because a crawler won't submit a form
doesn't mean that a user (or a non-compliant
crawler) won't. It's also not complicated for a
user to modify the headers to issue a post
instead of a get or vice versa. The point being, if you have something that
can trigger a data
change,
On 10/15/07, Dave Watts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Often, when a rule seems pointless, you may simply be missing the point.
Which is, you know, the point of talking about it.
The discussion has expanded my horizons since I had never considered the
problems that Google accelerator or a secure
On 10/15/07, Brian Kotek wrote:
Back to the original topic, I still wouldn't be referencing the form scope
from within the model. If you want to guarantee that the request was a
POST,
I'd do it in the controller before anything even gets to the model.
Which is precisely what I was asking
It seems that if the framework doesn't let you know which request
method the variables came from, the controller code will have to be
modified to check the FORM scope with StructKeyExists() or, perhaps
more appropriately, CGI.REQUEST_METHOD (if that is populated by your
webserver).
On 10/16/07,
Okay, so you pick a framework - just about any framework; Fusebox, ColdBox,
mach-ii, Model-Glue. These frameworks fold the form (post) and URL (get)
variables into an event object (or attributes in the case of traditional FB
apps). But let's say that you want to be sure that the variable came
I haven't worked with very many frameworks, but my understanding is that
they don't change the basic functionality of Coldfusion as a middle-tier.
You should be able to call upon the 'post' structure for the value of those
variables to verify that it was declared there.
William
--
William E
you pick a framework - just about any framework; Fusebox,
ColdBox,
mach-ii, Model-Glue. These frameworks fold the form (post) and URL (get)
variables into an event object (or attributes in the case of traditional
FB
apps). But let's say that you want to be sure that the variable came from
How do you guys (and girls) verify that it's a post var?
Check the Form scope?
Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
http://www.figleaf.com/
Fig Leaf Software provides the highest caliber vendor-authorized
instruction at our training centers in Washington DC, Atlanta,
Chicago, Baltimore, Northern
I suppose I don't understand why you'd care if the variable
came from a form field as opposed to a URL variable. Either
way you're going to have to make sure the user is an admin
and they they have the rights to delete something.
Data changes should not be triggered by GET requests.
Dave
Hi Matt!
If you want to make sure it came from a form post, look in the FORM
scope. :)
--
Cheers!
Michael David
Sunday, October 14, 2007, 9:05:09 PM, you wrote:
Okay, so you pick a framework - just about any framework; Fusebox, ColdBox,
mach-ii, Model-Glue. These frameworks fold
I should have clarified my question. I completely realize that the 'form'
and 'url' scopes (structs) still exist inside the various frameworks, so I
know that I can directly reference them. However, in an OO world, you're
technically not supposed to reference outside scopes. That is what
The title says it all but:
Mark Drew on his cfEclipse Frameworks Explorer - starting now:
http://adobechats.adobe.acrobat.com/frameworksexplorer/
--
Nick Tong
web: http://talkwebsolutions.co.uk
blog: http://succor.co.uk
f..works:http://cfframeworks.com
short urls: http
**promo ** Mark will also be doing a workshop on this tomorrow evening
(thursday 17th May) 7pm GMT / 2pm EST.
http://www.cfframeworks.com/blog/index.cfm/2007/5/10/cfFrameworks-workshop-Mark-Drew-on-cfEclipse-Frameworks-Explorer
On 11/05/07, Andrew Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Honestly Mark I
Thanks Sean, that's what I was looking for. =)
Appreciate your time!
Chris
-Original Message-
From: Sean Corfield [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2007 2:19 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Licensing on frameworks for Re-sale?
On 5/11/07, Andrew Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED
As Sean said
And sometimes, if one is unsure it doesn't hurt in talking to the author
either. But yeah not to familiar with a lot of these, and I know that the
open source project I released under the Apache 2.0 license and my notes
along with it, means that if you want to distribute my code
On 5/11/07, Andrew Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As Sean said
Heh, fresh from a couple of legal audits of my team's code base
(before I left Adobe a month ago). It was partly that process that
brought sufficient pressure to bear on Joe to get the MG:U license
changed - and on Paul to get
On 5/12/07, Sean Corfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
MG:U was originally released under the Lesser General Public License
(a bad idea) but has now changed to ASL 2.0 (like ColdSpring).
Here's a question for the lawyers out there.
If Model Glue was originally under the Lesser GPL... future
*lol* I think the author still owns the righs to do what he/she wants with
it...
On 5/12/07, Rick Root [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/12/07, Sean Corfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
MG:U was originally released under the Lesser General Public License
(a bad idea) but has now changed to ASL
On 5/12/07, Rick Root [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If Model Glue was originally under the Lesser GPL... future version
would be considered derivative works, would they not?
The author(s) can choose change the license. If you created a
derivative work from the old codebase, it would be covered by
So with Apache 2.0, you need to apply the license to every file?
On 5/13/07, Sean Corfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/12/07, Rick Root [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If Model Glue was originally under the Lesser GPL... future version
would be considered derivative works, would they not?
The
On 5/12/07, Andrew Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So with Apache 2.0, you need to apply the license to every file?
Yes. Every file must contain the standard ASL license text:
!---
Copyright (c) , The Names Of The Authors Or Company
Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the
Which makes in an absolute thrill to automatically apply to a project
containing .cfm, .as, .xml, .html, and other file formats all
requiring their own commenting formats.
If anyone needs an Ant script to do so, let me know.
-Joe
On May 12, 2007, at 7:24 PM, Sean Corfield wrote:
On
Has anyone else tackled this one:
I know very little about licensing of lesser GPL, Apache, etc. If I
develop a site using the latest MG:Unity, Transfer, and Coldspring, are
there any hiccups in their current license that would prohibit me from
a) leasing the end result software package out to
How about either a) writing an installer that pulls down the latest code
and installs it (most of them will work from the application root
directory), or b) writing installation instructions that explains that
the client first needs to install the separate components?
Damien McKenna
Web
That's going to open up a whole can of worms when the client tries to
use a version of the framework you haven't tested on. Best to somehow
package the framework with your product.
On 5/11/07, Damien McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How about either a) writing an installer that pulls down the
licenses able to chime in?
Chris
-Original Message-
From: Marlon Moyer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, May 11, 2007 4:03 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Licensing on frameworks for Re-sale?
That's going to open up a whole can of worms when the client tries to
use a version
, Chris
To: CF-Talk
Sent: Fri May 11 21:14:32 2007
Subject: RE: Licensing on frameworks for Re-sale?
I don't think you guys understood the question =)
I would have the framework packaged with it, I was concerned that one of
the licenses in either Transfer, Model Glue:U or Coldspring would
prohibit me
1 - 100 of 413 matches
Mail list logo
