> I think Office runs under Wine (certainly the CrossOver
> people think so !), I would expect it's (Office's) COM
> intergration to work too.
I would too, within WINE, but I doubt that WINE exports COM APIs to the
larger environment of the OS. I don't use WINE, though, so I'm not sure of
this.
On Tuesday 09 Sep 2003 14:56 pm, Matt Liotta wrote:
> > I think Office runs under Wine (certainly the CrossOver people think
> > so !), I
> > would expect it's (Office's) COM intergration to work too.
>
> I don't believe that the ability to emulate the Windows API has
> anything to do with whether
On Tuesday 09 Sep 2003 03:14 am, Matt Liotta wrote:
> help you much on Linux since Office doesn't support Linux.
I think Office runs under Wine (certainly the CrossOver people think so !), I
would expect it's (Office's) COM intergration to work too.
--
Tom Chiverton (sorry 'bout sig.)
Advanced
> Hmm, interesting point. Thanx. Do you have much invested in COM
> integration that you might want to migrate to Linux? If so, how do you
> envisage doing so? And how do you envisage the .NET integration helping
> you on Linux?
>
I'd say the most common CF/COM integration probably involves talking
On Monday, Sep 8, 2003, at 10:13 US/Pacific, Kevin Graeme wrote:
> While it might not create new demand for CF, I think it would make
> more CF
> houses interested in the Linux version. We're switching to the Linux
> version
> soon, so I've been trying to keep an eye on what things we might not
Sean A Corfield" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, September 08, 2003 11:07 AM
Subject: Re: .NET integration without COM
> On Monday, Sep 8, 2003, at 06:40 US/Pacific, Thomas Chiverton wrote:
> > On Monday 08 Sep 2003 14:27 pm,
On Monday, Sep 8, 2003, at 06:40 US/Pacific, Thomas Chiverton wrote:
> On Monday 08 Sep 2003 14:27 pm, Matt Liotta wrote:
>> We did the write the DLL in C++, so you can call .NET assemblies
>> directly. However, the DLL is native to Windows, thus an SO will need
>> to be written for *nix to support
> I'm just glad your aware of the prospect, t'is all :-)
>
Don't mistake us as a Windows only shop. All of our production servers
are Linux, my development machine is Mac OS X, and we actually host the
US CVS mirror for Mono. In short, when and if Mono --or Portable.NET
for that matter-- is read
> This sounds like an excellent product that would be quite useful. In
> fact, I am kind of surprised to be hearing about this so
> out-of-the-blue.
>
We've been working all summer under the radar to produce some
interesting technology. This is the first of many such projects.
> Can you clarify w
On Monday 08 Sep 2003 14:46 pm, Matt Liotta wrote:
> > I'd like to suggest you do so - this will greatly broaden the use of
> > CF, as
> > it'll then be able to support 'native' Linux .Net apps...
>
> We don't believe there is significant demand currently for native Linux
> .NET applications.
I'm
made it clear no pricing information has been
announced, can you give us any indication of the range where it might
fall?
Thanks,
M
> -Original Message-
> From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Saturday, September 06, 2003 1:04 AM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: Re: .
> I'd like to suggest you do so - this will greatly broaden the use of
> CF, as
> it'll then be able to support 'native' Linux .Net apps...
>
We don't believe there is significant demand currently for native Linux
.NET applications.
> We wouldn't purchase it at the moment, but I bet people using
On Monday 08 Sep 2003 14:27 pm, Matt Liotta wrote:
> We did the write the DLL in C++, so you can call .NET assemblies
> directly. However, the DLL is native to Windows, thus an SO will need
> to be written for *nix to support Mono.
I'd like to suggest you do so - this will greatly broaden the use
> Maybe I've read this wrong, but you've writen a Win32 DLL that talks
> .Net, so
> you can use a .Net language to write CFX tags, providing your server
> is on
> Win32 so can load the CFX.
> If you had chosen instead to write a Java/C CFX that talked .Net, you
> could
> call .Net packages (asse
> Maybe I've read this wrong, but you've writen a Win32 DLL
> that talks .Net, so you can use a .Net language to write
> CFX tags, providing your server is on Win32 so can load the
> CFX. If you had chosen instead to write a Java/C CFX that
> talked .Net, you could call .Net packages (assemblys
On Monday 08 Sep 2003 14:01 pm, Matt Liotta wrote:
> > As opposed to implementing the .Net calls in a CFML tag, which would
> > have
> > helped the non-Win32 folks a lot !
> I don't understand what you mean, could you clarify?
Maybe I've read this wrong, but you've writen a Win32 DLL that talks .N
> As opposed to implementing the .Net calls in a CFML tag, which would
> have
> helped the non-Win32 folks a lot !
>
I don't understand what you mean, could you clarify?
Matt Liotta
President & CEO
Montara Software, Inc.
http://www.MontaraSoftware.com
(888) 408-0900 x901
~~~
> > What we have done is re-implement the CFX API in .NET and
> > then hosted that inside of a CFX tag implemented as a DLL.
>
> As opposed to implementing the .Net calls in a CFML tag,
> which would have helped the non-Win32 folks a lot !
(I didn't think of this question in time for my first r
> > What we have done is re-implement the CFX API in .NET and
> > then hosted that inside of a CFX tag implemented as a DLL.
>
> As opposed to implementing the .Net calls in a CFML tag,
> which would have helped the non-Win32 folks a lot !
How many non-Win32 folks are using .NET? I know about M
(dunno where the body of this went last time !)
On Saturday 06 Sep 2003 01:18 am, Matt Liotta wrote:
> What we have done is re-implement the CFX API in .NET and then hosted
> that inside of a CFX tag implemented as a DLL.
As opposed to implementing the .Net calls in a CFML tag, which would have
hel
On Saturday 06 Sep 2003 01:18 am, Matt Liotta wrote:
> What we have done is re-implement the CFX API in .NET and then hosted
> that inside of a CFX tag implemented as a DLL.
As opposed to implementing the .Net calls in a CFML tag, which would have
helped the non-Win32 folks a lot !
--
Tom Chive
> For a CFX that was written in Java and then moved to J#, what is the
> difference in performance (for CFMX version)?
>
We haven't done any testing, but anecdotal evidence suggests that there
is a noticeable performance improvement. I believe this is because the
.NET CLR has a better JIT current
To: CF-Talk
> Subject: Re: .NET integration without COM
>
> any Java-based CFX tags can be recompiled in J# with often nothing more
> than a change to the import statements.
>
> Matt Liotta
~|
Archives
> Excellent. Is there going to be an evaluation version available?
>
We are currently conducting a private beta where interested parties can
evaluate the software. We have not decided whether there will be
evaluation version available when Black Knight ships. Quite simply, the
price point of Bl
> What we have done is re-implement the CFX API in .NET and then hosted
> that inside of a CFX tag implemented as a DLL. This eliminates the need
> for COM with ColdFusion prior to CFMX and eliminates the Java-COM
> bridge with CFMX. Thus allowing you to develop a CFX tag in any .NET
> language
> Very cool...can you give some high level details in how it works?
> (architecture, advantages over CF's current bridge approach etc)
>
As you know, to make use of a .NET-based object with any version of CF
requires wrapping that .NET object with COM. In addition with CFMX, you
have to use a Jav
Very cool...can you give some high level details in how it works?
(architecture, advantages over CF's current bridge approach etc)
Thanks!
Stace
-Original Message-
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: September 5, 2003 3:28 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: .NET integration without C
Congratulations Matt, even though you do swear at others from time-to-time ;o)
Kind Regards - Mike Brunt
Original Message ---
Montara Software yesterday announced a new product named Black Knight
that allows CFML developers to integrate .NET technology with their
application
28 matches
Mail list logo