I'm trying to read SOAP headers that a Flex client is sending my web service
and the headers are blank. I am using username =
getSOAPRequestHeader(http://mydomain/;, username); to read the header. Does
anyone know if there is something special that needs to been done on either the
ColdFusion
more than general consumers
(not always the case, and an assumption on my part based on my
experience). The one advantage we have today over the past is that we
have cross browser libraries like JQueryUI and Ext JS, and technologies
like Flex (in orgs that allow the Flash player, of which
I'm new to this thread but has anyone having issues with IE tried this:
http://code.google.com/p/html5shiv/
We started using it recently and it rocks
Sorry if this is a repeat or if I'm stating the bleeding obvious :)
~|
many folks don't have experience working with intranet apps, so may
not be aware of how it works.
In these situations there is usually no reason to worry about cross
browser compatibility as everyone in an organisation will use the same
browser, in fact it is usually a requirement and in many
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 10:21 AM, Russ Michaels r...@michaels.me.uk wrote:
there is usually no reason to worry about cross
browser compatibility as everyone in an organisation will use the same
browser,
[weeps] We are writing a huge intranet app for a client, who has no
such
lol, i guess your one of the unlucky ones :-)
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 11:10 AM, mac jordan mac.jor...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 10:21 AM, Russ Michaels r...@michaels.me.uk wrote:
there is usually no reason to worry about cross
browser compatibility as everyone in an
Many companies will make policy on standard browsers. They write
those standards in the specs for applications when they buy or write
them. Back during the time of IE6, it was commonly the standard
browser for businesses so developers created applications using IE6
only techniques like COM
The biggest issue is the insanely long ridiculous vetting process.. each
agency has its own and they take forever... im writing an app right now
against IE 8.
On Nov 17, 2011 6:29 AM, Russ Michaels r...@michaels.me.uk wrote:
lol, i guess your one of the unlucky ones :-)
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011
Marrying themselves to proprietary technology was wrong 15 years ago, and
it's still wrong now. Unfortunately for the taxpayers and consumers, we're
the ones who have to pick up the tab when the obsolete tech bites them.
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 3:47 AM, Roger Austin raust...@nc.rr.com wrote:
Not the cost of free IE (or that apps only run on IE6 IMHO).
It's the cost of the labour to do the upgrade and then the cost of the
labour to fix all the network installs that crapped out or otherwise
caused users grief.
Major disruption to a large organization has LOTS of cost ;-)
Cheers
On
to move beyond IE 8 would require a new OS, at least as far as the
feds go would mean a new machine
I know parts of the DOD are on Win 7. I wish that there was a single
clearing house that vetted for everyone..
oh..wait that would mean government efficiency and that wont happen.
On Thu,
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 6:10 AM, mac jordan mac.jor...@gmail.com wrote:
[weeps] We are writing a huge intranet app for a client, who has no
such requirement, so we have to support IE6+, Fireworks, Chrome, Safari.
There is more time spent on x-browser tweaking than writing CF code ...
Try Flex ;-)
On Thu, 2011-11-17 at 11:10 +, mac jordan wrote:
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 10:21 AM, Russ Michaels r...@michaels.me.uk wrote:
there is usually no reason to worry about cross
browser compatibility as everyone in an organisation will use the same
browser,
[weeps] We
Marrying themselves to proprietary technology was wrong 15 years ago, and
it's still wrong now. Unfortunately for the taxpayers and consumers, we're
the ones who have to pick up the tab when the obsolete tech bites them.
Blanket statements like this are often wrong in specific situations.
Nevertheless, I stand by it, and my government clients aren't the ones
stuck on IE6.
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 9:22 AM, Dave Watts dwa...@figleaf.com wrote:
Marrying themselves to proprietary technology was wrong 15 years ago, and
it's still wrong now. Unfortunately for the taxpayers and
not exactly true.
If you have a 5 year old app that was written for the browsers of the
time, it wont matter whether it was written for just 1 browser or for
all browsers, it will still be out of date now and will still need
updating for the latest browsers.
If however it was only written to work
Not at all true, Russ.
Here's a website that I wrote in 1994 that is archived (archive.org
only has it back through 1996) that works just fine in Chrome 16, IE 9
and FireFox 8 on a Windows 7 box.
http://web.archive.org/web/19961018091409/http://babel.uoregon.edu/yamada/guides.html
None of
Making an app cross browser does not magically make it future proof.
I have had JS/CSS widgets break going from one verison of IE to the next.
So we all agree... MS has made some crappy browsers, the gov't agencies do
foolish things, like consistency, are slow to change and inefficient. And
you have to use a bit of common sense here, obviously every app in the
world was not written by you and does not work the same as yours, if
they did then this thread would not exist nor would the previous
comments.
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 7:01 PM, Judah McAuley ju...@wiredotter.com wrote:
Not
Oh, I agree Russ, but you were making absolutist statements, not using
common sense. Common sense says: write to standards, tweak as required
for individual customer needs, plan periodic refreshes to better take
advantage of improving/changing technology.
Cheers,
Judah
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at
you have to use a bit of common sense here, obviously every app in the
world was not written by you and does not work the same as yours, if
they did then this thread would not exist nor would the previous
comments.
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 7:01 PM, Judah McAuley ju...@wiredotter.com wrote:
Common sense says: write to standards,
Color me stupid but I am not understanding what that means, Write to
standards. I ran across the same thing here on this page.
http://paulirish.com/2011/browser-market-pollution-iex-is-the-new-ie6/
Corporate users should be testing their applications
a fix is put out.
Steve
-Original Message-
From: Gerald Guido [mailto:gerald.gu...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2011 3:30 PM
To: cf-talk
Subject: Re: Adobe Abandons Flex
Common sense says: write to standards,
Color me stupid but I am not understanding what that means, Write
: Gerald Guido [mailto:gerald.gu...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2011 3:30 PM
To: cf-talk
Subject: Re: Adobe Abandons Flex
Common sense says: write to standards,
Color me stupid but I am not understanding what that means, Write to
standards. I ran across the same thing here
There is most certainly variation when it comes to standards
conformance with regards to both time and browser. None the less,
there are fairly well understood subsets that are supported (and were
back then) that form a comfortable base for most development to start.
Hence why the website I wrote
: Gerald Guido [mailto:gerald.gu...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2011 3:30 PM
To: cf-talk
Subject: Re: Adobe Abandons Flex
Common sense says: write to standards,
Color me stupid but I am not understanding what that means, Write to
standards. I ran across the same thing
that in the Federal sector this won't wash..
(says me working from my federal Win XP IE 8 machine).
HTML 5 is very cool, but it's World Dominance is greatly exaggerated.
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 3:05 PM, Matt Quackenbushquackfu...@gmail.com
wrote:
CF is indeed alive and well. Flex? Flash? Nopers
On 11/15/2011 5:06 PM, Judah McAuley wrote:
The CF javascript libraries for UI work (cfdiv, cfwindow, etc) were
based on the ExtJS library (which then merged with Sencha).
Adobe/Macromedia, as far as I'm aware, never contributed any work to
that project but did license it. Going forward,
World Dominance is greatly exaggerated.
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 3:05 PM, Matt Quackenbushquackfu...@gmail.com
wrote:
CF is indeed alive and well. Flex? Flash? Nopers. Done. Be sure to
read the portions from Adobe where they clearly state that for all future
enterprise development
Quackenbushquackfu...@gmail.com
wrote:
CF is indeed alive and well. Flex? Flash? Nopers. Done. Be sure to
read the portions from Adobe where they clearly state that for all future
enterprise development THEY recommend HTML5 and NOT Flash/Flex.
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 2:02 PM, Scott
Dominance is greatly exaggerated.
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 3:05 PM, Matt Quackenbush
quackfu...@gmail.com wrote:
CF is indeed alive and well. Flex? Flash? Nopers. Done. Be
sure to
read the portions from Adobe where they clearly state that for all
future
enterprise development
@gmail.
com wrote:
CF is indeed alive and well. Flex? Flash? Nopers. Done. Be
sure to
read the portions from Adobe where they clearly state that for all
future
enterprise development THEY recommend HTML5 and NOT Flash/Flex.
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 2:02 PM, Scott
Stewartwebmas
This makes no sense to me. I can understand a business or government
office being slow to upgrade to new software if cost were involved, but IE
upgrades are free, and would certainly be more secure and productive.
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 4:14 PM, Dan Crouch stario...@yahoo.com wrote:
Just
It's not that the upgrade costs. It's usually that they have a lot of
intranet apps that only run properly on IE6. :(
On 11/16/11 5:22 PM, Maureen wrote:
This makes no sense to me. I can understand a business or government
office being slow to upgrade to new software if cost were involved,
Oh, ack!! It never occurred to me that they would be stupid enough to apps
that only run on IE6.
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 5:28 PM, .jonah jonah@creori.com wrote:
It's not that the upgrade costs. It's usually that they have a lot of
intranet apps that only run properly on IE6. :(
On
7:55 PM
To: cf-talk
Subject: Re: Adobe Abandons Flex
Oh, ack!! It never occurred to me that they would be stupid enough to apps
that only run on IE6.
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 5:28 PM, .jonah jonah@creori.com wrote:
It's not that the upgrade costs. It's usually that they have a lot
I'm not writing apps that target any browser. I'm writing apps that work
in all of them. And I consider it bad practice not to do so.
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 6:42 PM, andy matthews li...@commadelimited.comwrote:
Not fair to say stupid enough.
Many of those apps were written back when IE6
[mailto:mamamaur...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2011 8:45 PM
To: cf-talk
Subject: Re: Adobe Abandons Flex
I'm not writing apps that target any browser. I'm writing apps that work in
all of them. And I consider it bad practice not to do so.
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 6:42 PM, andy matthews
[mailto:mamamaur...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2011 8:45 PM
To: cf-talk
Subject: Re: Adobe Abandons Flex
I'm not writing apps that target any browser. I'm writing apps that work
in
all of them. And I consider it bad practice not to do so.
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 6:42 PM, andy matthews
I've been around since 1952, so yeah, I was there for the browser wars.
It wasn't a luxury to make the sites work for all browsers, it was a
necessity, and should have been part of the budget for every project,
although I know it wasn't.
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 6:49 PM, andy matthews
Well, in some cases for example, there were these things called COM
objects that were used to provide functionality that wasn't possible in
a cross-browser manner.
On 11/16/11 7:28 PM, Maureen wrote:
I've been around since 1952, so yeah, I was there for the browser wars.
It wasn't a luxury
I've been around since 1952, so yeah, I was there for the browser wars.
It wasn't a luxury to make the sites work for all browsers, it was a
necessity, and should have been part of the budget for every project,
although I know it wasn't.
Well, no, it clearly wasn't a necessity, as we can see
Adobe announced this week that they are ending their commitment to
further Flex development. Flex 4.6 will likely be the last version
Adobe releases and the Flex SDK engineers will be reassigned to HTML 5
projects. Future Flex development will come from the open source
community
Hasn't the flex SDK *always* been open source?
I think this last line contradicts your statement
Is Adobe still committed to Flash Builder?
Yes. Flash Builder will continue to be developed and Adobe will work
to ensure Flex developers can use Flash Builder as their development
tool with future
CF is indeed alive and well. Flex? Flash? Nopers. Done. Be sure to
read the portions from Adobe where they clearly state that for all future
enterprise development THEY recommend HTML5 and NOT Flash/Flex.
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 2:02 PM, Scott Stewart webmas...@sstwebworks.comwrote
I suggest everyone read the article behind the link Mike posted.
No offence Mike, but you may have paraphrased a little too much there
(or it's my own interpretation) ;-)
I read it as Flexhas NOT been adondonded and will continue on for some
timesome of the Flex SDK engineers will be part
quackfu...@gmail.com wrote:
CF is indeed alive and well. Flex? Flash? Nopers. Done. Be sure to
read the portions from Adobe where they clearly state that for all future
enterprise development THEY recommend HTML5 and NOT Flash/Flex.
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 2:02 PM, Scott Stewart
webmas
Everything else you said aside Scottfree does not mean open source
The Flex SDK has been free
Cheers
On Tue, 2011-11-15 at 15:02 -0500, Scott Stewart wrote:
Hasn't the flex SDK *always* been open source?
I think this last line contradicts your statement
Is Adobe still committed
picky, picky picky :)
but yeah your right...
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 3:09 PM, Bryan Stevenson
br...@electricedgesystems.com wrote:
Everything else you said aside Scottfree does not mean open source
The Flex SDK has been free
Cheers
On Tue, 2011-11-15 at 15:02 -0500, Scott Stewart
LOL...sorry manwhen the flames are getting ready to riseaccuracy
counts ;-)
On Tue, 2011-11-15 at 15:12 -0500, Scott Stewart wrote:
picky, picky picky :)
but yeah your right...
--
Bryan Stevenson B.Comm.
VP Director of E-Commerce Development
Electric Edge Systems Group Inc.
..
(says me working from my federal Win XP IE 8 machine).
HTML 5 is very cool, but it's World Dominance is greatly exaggerated.
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 3:05 PM, Matt Quackenbushquackfu...@gmail.com
wrote:
CF is indeed alive and well. Flex? Flash? Nopers. Done. Be sure to
read the portions
:05 PM, Matt Quackenbushquackfu...@gmail.com
wrote:
CF is indeed alive and well. Flex? Flash? Nopers. Done. Be sure to
read the portions from Adobe where they clearly state that for all future
enterprise development THEY recommend HTML5 and NOT Flash/Flex.
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 2:02
Everything else you said aside Scottfree does not mean open source
The Flex SDK has been free
I'm pretty sure it's always been open-source as well. You can
certainly trace into source code of classes within the Flex class
library. And the Flex SDK has always been available from here
It became open source in version 3 I believe. It's been that way for quite
a while now.
-Jake
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 2:45 PM, Dave Watts dwa...@figleaf.com wrote:
Everything else you said aside Scottfree does not mean open source
The Flex SDK has been free
I'm pretty sure it's
I'll always bow to your wisdom Davenever saw that before ;-)
On Tue, 2011-11-15 at 15:45 -0500, Dave Watts wrote:
Everything else you said aside Scottfree does not mean open source
The Flex SDK has been free
I'm pretty sure it's always been open-source as well. You can
machine).
HTML 5 is very cool, but it's World Dominance is greatly exaggerated.
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 3:05 PM, Matt Quackenbush quackfu...@gmail.com
wrote:
CF is indeed alive and well. Flex? Flash? Nopers. Done. Be sure to
read the portions from Adobe where they clearly state
.
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 3:05 PM, Matt Quackenbush quackfu...@gmail.com
wrote:
CF is indeed alive and well. Flex? Flash? Nopers. Done. Be sure to
read the portions from Adobe where they clearly state that for all future
enterprise development THEY recommend HTML5 and NOT Flash/Flex
Open source is a phrase that can have a few interpretations. In this
case it means Adobe is not going to devote any more company resources
into future development. I think the outcome will be the same as what
happened to Spectra, unless the Flex community convinces Adobe to
change their mind. I
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 4:08 PM, Scott Stewart webmas...@sstwebworks.comwrote:
don't get me wrong, so am I but at the same time the HTML 4 world
isn't going away anytime soon.. and it still needs to be supported.
I did not mean to infer you were or weren't or what ever the case may be.
:)
Open source is a phrase that can have a few interpretations. In this
case it means Adobe is not going to devote any more company resources
into future development. I think the outcome will be the same as what
happened to Spectra, unless the Flex community convinces Adobe to
change their mind
Everything else you said aside Scottfree does not mean open source
The Flex SDK has been free
I'm pretty sure it's always been open-source as well. You can
certainly trace into source code of classes within the Flex class
library. And the Flex SDK has always been available
They say they are assigning some Flex SDK engineers to the open source
team...did we read the same announcement??
On Tue, 2011-11-15 at 16:08 -0500, Mike Chabot wrote:
Open source is a phrase that can have a few interpretations. In this
case it means Adobe is not going to devote any more
exactlythis all seems too soon on Adobe's part
...but learning what's coming is always wise
On Tue, 2011-11-15 at 16:08 -0500, Scott Stewart wrote:
don't get me wrong, so am I but at the same time the HTML 4 world
isn't going away anytime soon.. and it still needs to be supported.
--
.
Would a software architect choose Flex for a new $1M enterprise
development project when Apple, Microsoft, Google, and now Adobe have
all come out saying that HTML 5 is the future for RIA development? A
big target of Flex is the enterprise market where Web applications
cost hundreds of thousands
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 1:32 PM, Dave Watts dwa...@figleaf.com wrote:
This doesn't entirely make sense to me, though - they're not getting
rid of Flash Builder. I also suspect that they'll subsidize some of
the open-source development, as they've done many times in the past -
the Ajax library
+1 to corporate spin
And no, no one in their right mind would invest in a **NEW** Flex/Flash
application. From the Adobe page:
/snip
*Does Adobe recommend we use Flex or HTML5 for our enterprise application
development?*
In the long-term, we believe HTML5
The abandonment of Spectra was accompanied by a rosy news release and claims
of This is fantastic
news! Spectra quickly died.
That was fantastic news!
(not a Spectra fan here, but j/k I guess)
Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
http://www.figleaf.com/
http://training.figleaf.com/
Fig
I don't know - this all seems so premature. It's not like HTML5 is 100% ready
for primetime. I think of some of the stuff I do with Flex and HTML/JS seems
much weaker as a programming language. A key phrase in the post was 'in the
long run'. I don't see HTML/JS being stronger than Flex
I miss Spectra. Lots of expensive training lost in a moment.
But working in WordPress brings back lots of memory of containers, and late
nights tweaking nesting rules.
Sigh.
But a Flex question. If Adobe stops any further development on Flex, how
likely is it that an open source group might
*wakes up*
Spectra? Did someone say Spectra?
*back to sleep*
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 4:30 PM, Jerry Milo Johnson jmi...@gmail.com wrote:
I miss Spectra. Lots of expensive training lost in a moment.
But working in WordPress brings back lots of memory of containers, and late
nights tweaking
it is my understanding that Adobe is getting more of the JQuery love in
its life a
I looked under the hood of Adobe Edge, the HTML5 animation tool and it uses
jQuery and stores data for the animations as JSON. jQuery is wildly popular
for good reason. In many ways it is like CFML, it makes hard
They updated the announcementmuch better:
http://blogs.adobe.com/flex/2011/11/your-questions-about-flex.html
On Mon, 2011-11-14 at 15:18 -0500, Mike Chabot wrote:
http://blogs.adobe.com/flex/2011/11/your-questions-about-flex.html
--
Bryan Stevenson B.Comm.
VP Director of E-Commerce
We don't just use jQuery, we put engineering time into it - and jQuery
UI and jQuery Mobile. That doesn't get enough press so spread the
word. ;)
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 7:36 PM, Emmit Larson emmit.lar...@gmail.com wrote:
it is my understanding that Adobe is getting more of the JQuery love
That's what I was saying, Ray :)
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 6:55 PM, Raymond Camden raymondcam...@gmail.com wrote:
We don't just use jQuery, we put engineering time into it - and jQuery
UI and jQuery Mobile. That doesn't get enough press so spread the
word. ;)
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 7:36
But a Flex question. If Adobe stops any further development on Flex, how
likely is it that an open source group might continue to develop it?
Well, lots of ASF projects do pretty well. But, they tend not to have
that specific a focus - one of the things that a company can bring to
development
*wakes up*
Spectra? Did someone say Spectra?
*back to sleep*
Spectra can also be used to summon shoggoths.
Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
http://www.figleaf.com/
http://training.figleaf.com/
Fig Leaf Software is a Veteran-Owned Small Business (VOSB) on
GSA Schedule, and provides the
The way I've done this in the past was to store the credentials on the flex
client and re-authenticate the user with these using the CFLOGIN framework.
This way the responsibility for continuing the session is on the flex side
of things.
I'd really rather not do this as it would mean using
if it wasn't for the issue with the error handling
It does appear that this is a verified bug in CF 9.01:
http://cfbugs.adobe.com/cfbugreport/flexbugui/cfbugtracker/main.html#bugId=83525
Boy it's frustrating when new features are crippled with bugs that make them
unusable! I'll have to
not even sure there's a way I could handle any
unexpected exceptions this way, but it certainly wouldn't be easy and would
probably mean dumping the entire Flex framework to do so. It's not even close
to a reasonable solution. So looks like using onCFCRequest is out of the realm
of possibilities.
MJS
I'll have to play around with their suggested
workaround and see if there's any way I can get that to work, as
it's
the one stumbling block for me with going this route.
We decided to just look at adding a timer in Flex to keep the session alive.
This should work well enough
Okay, so we have a flex application running on top of ColdFusion. Basically
going through CFCs as web services for whatever it needs. But I'm having a hard
time coming up with the best way to handle sessions. I don't really store much
in the session, other than just the user ID and whether
The way I've done this in the past was to store the credentials on the flex
client and re-authenticate the user with these using the CFLOGIN framework.
This way the responsibility for continuing the session is on the flex side
of things. This works with the RemoteObject.setRemoteCredentials
RemoteObjects will not return. Just get a busy cursor. Running CF8/Flex 3.3.
Any help is appreciated.
~|
Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now!
http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag
Mike,
More info is required here. Is Flash remoting support enabled in CF
Admin? Are the CFC methods exposed remotely? Is the Flex app running in
the same domain as CF? Why are you using Flex 3.3 instead of Flex 3.5?
Have you tried using a Network sniffer like Charles? Are you capturing
RemoteObjects will not return. Just get a busy cursor. Running CF8/Flex 3.3.
Any help is appreciated.
This could be almost anything. What happens if you add TraceTarget to
your app and debug it?
Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
http://www.figleaf.com/
http://training.figleaf.com/
Fig Leaf
I have CF8.0.1, and when I request an mxml file, it compiles to a
actionscript/swf a la FLEX, and I get the flash file.
When I have a missing CFM file, I get a 404.
But, when I have a missing MXML file, I get a 500 server error, and I
get an error message that displays the full system path
Hi All -
What are the best active projects in Flex, Coldfusion or both. I am good in
Coldfusion, but I never got a chance to work in advanced topics. Also, I am
very interested in learning Flex and I want to learn by contributing to
existing projects. Also, it would be great if anyone can
RIAforge.org has loads of projects based around Adobe products: ColdFusion,
Flex, Photoshop, etc.
CFLib.org has a large number of single serving functions and that sort of
thing.
andy
-Original Message-
From: fun and learning [mailto:funandlrnn...@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, September
Hey All,
I looked in all rationale places I could find on HoF to find the address
to use to post to the Flex and AIR lists (i.e
cf-talk@houseoffusion.com)but no luck!
Anyone know what the addresses are? Mike??
TIA
Cheers
Bryan Stevenson B.Comm.
VP Director of E-Commerce Development
I looked in all rationale places I could find on HoF to find the address
to use to post to the Flex and AIR lists (i.e
cf-talk@houseoffusion.com)but no luck!
f...@houseoffusion.com
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/flex/subscribe.cfm
Unsubscribe: http
Thanks for the answer and extra resources Dave!
I suppose the air list would be a...@houseoffusion.com ?? ;-)
Cheers
On Thu, 2010-08-05 at 12:27 -0400, Dave Watts wrote:
I looked in all rationale places I could find on HoF to find the address
to use to post to the Flex and AIR lists (i.e
I suppose the air list would be a...@houseoffusion.com ?? ;-)
I'm not aware of an AIR list here, but if there were one I suspect it
would have very low traffic. The AIR-Tight list has a pretty good
group of people who can answer questions, and some folks from the
Adobe AIR team.
Dave Watts,
Thanks againand yep there is one (last post Dece 15, 2008 hehe).
Cheers
Bryan Stevenson B.Comm.
VP Director of E-Commerce Development
Electric Edge Systems Group Inc.
phone: 250.480.0642
fax: 250.480.1264
cell: 250.920.8830
e-mail: br...@electricedgesystems.com
web:
Probably from me. No one uses that list since all AIR development overlaps
into one of the other lists.
-Original Message-
From: Bryan Stevenson [mailto:br...@electricedgesystems.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2010 11:41 AM
To: cf-talk
Subject: Re: (ot) post to Flex/AIR lists
Thanks
Thanks AndyI kinda figured there would at least be overlap with
FLEX ;-)
On Thu, 2010-08-05 at 13:03 -0500, Andy Matthews wrote:
Probably from me. No one uses that list since all AIR development overlaps
into one of the other lists.
Bryan Stevenson B.Comm.
VP Director of E-Commerce
thanks, that is very useful information :)
EXTJs, the version that ships with your CF server, is also free to use in
production as it is part of your CF Server license.
Don't know about Flex in production.
On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 1:06 PM, Andy Matthews li...@commadelimited.comwrote
Hi
we used to use dhtmlx for our interface components but found it was very slow.
We were pointed to Ext JS and think it is brilliant. However, we are just
wondering where flex fitd in. do you guys use flex instead of ext js, or do you
combine the two?
we would appreciate any general advice
The two technologies, Flex and Ext JS, do very similar things in different
ways. I'd say that it all depends on where your comfort level is.
If your team knows Actionscript 3 (or Java) already, then Flex might be a
good fit. If, on the other hand, you have JavaScript experts, you might want
EXTJs, the version that ships with your CF server, is also free to use in
production as it is part of your CF Server license.
Don't know about Flex in production.
On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 1:06 PM, Andy Matthews li...@commadelimited.comwrote:
The two technologies, Flex and Ext JS, do very
Don't know about Flex in production.
Flex is certainly free to use in production. The only cost to using
Flex is that you may choose to purchase Flex Builder for development.
That is optional, however.
Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
http://www.figleaf.com/
http://training.figleaf.com/
Fig
1 - 100 of 1445 matches
Mail list logo
