Or at least as a developer, wouldn't you like that? Wouldn't take months
to write a parser then, neh? :-)
Parsing CF code means that the CF server compiles your code, not YOU.
If you write a parser for some code of yours in CF, it's completely
another story.
--
On 7/8/06, Claude Schneegans [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Or at least as a developer, wouldn't you like that? Wouldn't take months
to write a parser then, neh? :-)
Parsing CF code means that the CF server compiles your code, not YOU.
If you write a parser for some code of yours in CF, it's
This is simply ridiculous: both CF and XML are in fact SGML
compliant (at least almost), so what's really the big difference?
If you're writing a parser, almost compliant is like almost pregnant -
it either is, or it isn't. And SGML compliance is not especially useful,
because SGML is very
How about we keep it civil on this technical only discussion list. I'd hate to
have to write moderation software to do what civilized humans should be doing.
Thanks
Your list admin
~|
Introducing the Fusion Authority Quarterly
Anyways, all to say this: The XML syntax isn't necessarily easier or better
than CFML, but for what this, or other XML-based frameworks do for you, the
extra brain space is worth using these frameworks.
Comparing XML to CFML is an excercise in futility - it's apples and
oranges, and I just
On 7/7/06, Joe Rinehart [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Anyways, all to say this: The XML syntax isn't necessarily easier or
better
than CFML, but for what this, or other XML-based frameworks do for you,
the
extra brain space is worth using these frameworks.
Comparing XML to CFML is an
I remember on the CFEclipse list, someone saying how it would be easier
to parse the CF code if it was XML compliant.
This is simply ridiculous: both CF and XML are in fact SGML compliant
(at least almost),
so what's really the big difference?
Secondly, does it really matters for us developers
On 7/7/06, Claude Schneegans [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I remember on the CFEclipse list, someone saying how it would be easier
to parse the CF code if it was XML compliant.
This is simply ridiculous: both CF and XML are in fact SGML compliant
(at least almost),
so what's really the big
Might have already been clarified but no, it isn't.
http://www.adobe.com/products/coldfusion/productinfo/systemreqs/
-Original Message-
From: Snake [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 01 July 2006 23:54
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Framework suggestions
Yes it is.
-Original Message
suggestions
Might have already been clarified but no, it isn't.
http://www.adobe.com/products/coldfusion/productinfo/systemreqs/
-Original Message-
From: Snake [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 01 July 2006 23:54
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Framework suggestions
Yes it is.
-Original
The key in the question was probably supported, which translates to
Adobe won't tell me to reinstall the server on something else before
they'll touch my support call. Same goes for different JVMs and all
sorts of things that work great.
On 7/6/06, Snake [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OK, so it is not
it is not in the list, but there are plenty of people using tomcat
with CF, you only need to look through the list archive for evidence.
-Original Message-
From: Robertson-Ravo, Neil (RX)
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 06 July 2006 14:08
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Framework suggestions
Might
OK, so it is not in the list, but there are plenty of people
using tomcat with CF, you only need to look through the list
archive for evidence.
Yes, but that doesn't make it a supported configuration.
Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
http://www.figleaf.com/
Fig Leaf Software provides the
: Framework suggestions
OK, so it is not in the list, but there are plenty of people using tomcat
with CF, you only need to look through the list archive for evidence.
-Original Message-
From: Robertson-Ravo, Neil (RX)
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 06 July 2006 14:08
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE
Ok so lets rephrase it then
Yes you can use it, but it is not officially supported.
Better :-)
-Original Message-
From: James Holmes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 06 July 2006 14:46
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Framework suggestions
The key in the question was probably supported, which
or FB5 and compare the difference.
You will then have answered your own question.
HTH
Snake
-Original Message-
From: Greg Luce [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 03 July 2006 20:05
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Framework suggestions
But you have time to write all these uneducated opinions
Don't want dumb respones, then don't post dumb comments.
-Original Message-
From: Greg Luce [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 05 July 2006 13:48
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Framework suggestions
That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard! Maybe I'll go post on the PGA tour
players forum
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2006 9:28 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Framework suggestions
Don't want dumb respones, then don't post dumb comments.
-Original Message-
From: Greg Luce [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 05 July 2006 13:48
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Framework
Brian,
On 7/3/06, Brian Rinaldi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not to disagree with you, obviously you know FarCry far better than I, but
my email was based upon my experiences with prior and existing versions of
FarCry (and was not a criticism). Nonetheless, I do take a bit of issue with
calling
-Talk
Subject: Re: Framework suggestions
XML is certainly not easier for CF developers to use, but it does accomplish
a few important things.
First, it's not language specific. This is the weakest point because not
many people care whether or not they can move their controller layer between
-
From: Nathan Strutz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 03 July 2006 04:05
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Framework suggestions
XML is certainly not easier for CF developers to use, but it does
accomplish
a few important things.
First, it's not language specific. This is the weakest point because
Geoff,
Actually I brought up FourQ because Charlie Arehart had someone present it
as a Reactor alternative at an Atlanta CFUG meeting and he asked why it
wasn't on the open-source list. I told him it was because I could not find a
seperate download any longer (at this point in time, I don't list
Clark
==
http://www.shayna.com
Training in Cascading Style Sheets and Accessibility
-Original Message-
From: Snake [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, July 03, 2006 6:42 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Framework suggestions
I would imagine this is a pain
First, it's not language specific. This is the weakest point because not
many people care whether or not they can move their controller layer between
different languages, but it sounds nice.
You're taking the words right out of my mouth ;-/
Second, [...] the limited XML syntax
forces you to
-Talk
Subject: Re: Framework suggestions
Stop imagining and actually try it.
On 7/3/06, Snake [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would imagine this is a pain to debug, because any errors will be in
the compiled pages (which u can't view I presume if they are compiled
to
memory)
not in the code you
Brian Rinaldi wrote:
Geoff,
Actually I brought up FourQ because Charlie Arehart had someone present it
as a Reactor alternative at an Atlanta CFUG meeting and he asked why it
wasn't on the open-source list. I told him it was because I could not find a
seperate download any longer (at this point
Claude Snake,
We know you both either don't have the time or just don't think it's worth your
time to code using frameworks. I think it's time for you to stop contributing
to threads on them since you have no actually looked at any of the code in
frameworks. This thread started as a
Charlie,
Thanks for clarifying...my wording was definitely awkward...it happens
frequently on these lists ;) That actually didn't start any debate - I just
took the opportunity to ask about whether FourQ was available seperately
within my response, which has nothing to do really with whether one
I think it's time for you to stop contributing to threads on them
since you have no actually looked at any of the code in frameworks.
Wrong, I had to work on an application developed under FB, so I had to
learn it.
I know enough about it, and other solutions, to be able to say that FB
is
this comment at me.
-Original Message-
From: Robert Everland III [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 03 July 2006 15:49
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Framework suggestions
Claude Snake,
We know you both either don't have the time or just don't think it's worth
your time to code using
On 7/3/06, Claude Schneegans [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Second, [...] the limited XML syntax
forces you to stand back and think about your application.
OK, so it's better because it's limited?
Yeah. Believe it or not.
It makes sure your application controller isn't doing anything but than
I was referring to this comment:
Unfortunately I have a full-time job, so I don't have the luxury of just
taking time off at a whim to play with new frameworks.
Things like this have to wait until I have some free time.
snake
Stop imagining and actually try it.
Bob
Subject: Re: Framework suggestions
I was referring to this comment:
Unfortunately I have a full-time job, so I don't have the luxury of just
taking time off at a whim to play with new frameworks.
Things like this have to wait until I have some free time.
snake
Stop imagining and actually try
and shove your lifestyle down other peoples throats, we don't need any more
dippy Daves on here, one is enough.
snake
-Original Message-
From: Robert Everland III [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 03 July 2006 18:28
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Framework suggestions
I
Snake,
I said nothing deragatory to you, I asked you to not post on this topic because
what you had to say wasn't relative to the question asked.
As for the issues you addressed to me publicly I will address them publicly.
Sorry if your single, have no kids and/or are unemployed/on welfare,
Also, one of the main benefits of the XML is that the program structure and
flow is described there, and not among the rest of the CF code. This enables
tools like Fusebuilder, fuseminder, etc. that can document and modify the
flow+structure of the application programmatically.
On 7/3/06,
people (E.G. Dave) now so that I never see his
abuse, so he can't wind me up, so I wont reply.
Snake
-Original Message-
From: Crow T. Robot [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 03 July 2006 19:45
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Framework suggestions
Man, do you ever look and see that you're the one
-
From: Greg Luce [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 03 July 2006 20:05
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Framework suggestions
But you have time to write all these uneducated opinions?
On 7/3/06, Snake [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Unfortunately I have a full-time job, so I don't have the luxury of
just
2006 22:04
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Framework suggestions
Also, one of the main benefits of the XML is that the program structure and
flow is described there, and not among the rest of the CF code. This enables
tools like Fusebuilder, fuseminder, etc. that can document and modify the
flow+structure
Sorry useful, I meant useful :-)
-Original Message-
From: Snake [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 03 July 2006 23:56
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Framework suggestions
Thanks guys for saving me several hours of having to go through FB5 myself
to find this out.
At least there are some people
-Original Message-
From: Sandra Clark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 01 July 2006 21:06
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Framework suggestions
FB5 Documentation can be found here:
http://www.fusebox.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=documentation.WhatsNewInFusebox5
Sandra Clark
you don't actually code in CFML anymore, your essentially coding in XML.
Geee! It's getting worse and worse :-(
--
___
REUSE CODE! Use custom tags;
See http://www.contentbox.com/claude/customtags/tagstore.cfm
(Please send any spam to this address: [EMAIL
Clark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 01 July 2006 21:06
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Framework suggestions
FB5 Documentation can be found here:
http://www.fusebox.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=documentation.WhatsNewInFusebox5
Sandra Clark
==
http://www.shayna.com
Geoff,
Not to disagree with you, obviously you know FarCry far better than I, but
my email was based upon my experiences with prior and existing versions of
FarCry (and was not a criticism). Nonetheless, I do take a bit of issue with
calling FarCry a framework. Yes it is extensible and offers you
The FB5 core is basically a
compiler that transforms the XML into vanilla CFML.
OK, but what's the big idea?
Is XML any simpler or easier to use than CFML?
--
___
REUSE CODE! Use custom tags;
See http://www.contentbox.com/claude/customtags/tagstore.cfm
XML is certainly not easier for CF developers to use, but it does accomplish
a few important things.
First, it's not language specific. This is the weakest point because not
many people care whether or not they can move their controller layer between
different languages, but it sounds nice.
Russ,
FarCry CMS is a full enterprise content management system. It is not
actually a framework at all and would bear no resemblance to Model-Glue,
FuseBox or Mach II. FarCry does include a means of extending the base CMS
functionality and this requires the use of built in extensions. You can
:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 30, 2006 8:45 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Framework suggestions
The session issue can be overcome for the most part with a hardware
load balancer that provides sticky sessions.
On 7/1/06, Russ [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does anyone have any thoughs
Holmes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 30, 2006 8:45 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Framework suggestions
The session issue can be overcome for the most part with a hardware
load balancer that provides sticky sessions.
On 7/1/06, Russ [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does anyone have
So what about Tomcat? Is it a supported configuration for cfmx?
-Original Message-
From: Snake [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, July 01, 2006 12:10 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Framework suggestions
It is jrun that is the problem, so running CFMX on a J2EE server that has
PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 30, 2006 2:52 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Framework suggestions
I'm pursuing all three options right now... I couldn't seem to find any
documentation for either Fusebox5 or MD:U. Looks like MD:U is still in beta
and Fusebox 5 just got released at CFUN.
Does anyone know
work very well in CFMX 7. Should I be looking
at bluedragon or maybe running cf on top of another JRUN Server such as
Tomcat?
Russ
-Original Message-
From: James Holmes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 30, 2006 8:45 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Framework
Yes it is.
-Original Message-
From: Russ [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 01 July 2006 17:49
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Framework suggestions
So what about Tomcat? Is it a supported configuration for cfmx?
-Original Message-
From: Snake [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent
: Sandra Clark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 01 July 2006 21:06
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Framework suggestions
FB5 Documentation can be found here:
http://www.fusebox.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=documentation.WhatsNewInFusebox5
Sandra Clark
==
http://www.shayna.com
Damien McKenna wrote:
On Jun 30, 2006, at 2:15 PM, Russ wrote:
We are in need to build a fairly sophisticated system in a few months.
Are you looking for a basic framework or a customizable application?
If a framework then I'd have to say either Model-Glue:Unity or Fusebox5
and I'm tending
Brian Rinaldi wrote:
FarCry CMS is a full enterprise content management system. It is not
actually a framework at all and would bear no resemblance to Model-Glue,
FuseBox or Mach II. FarCry does include a means of extending the base CMS
Without meaning to get into a frameworks debate.. or even
integrated blogCFC and/or galleon forums with either of the 3 and
would like to comment on how easy/hard it was?
Russ
-Original Message-
From: Damien McKenna [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 30, 2006 2:39 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Framework suggestions
On Jun 30, 2006
Russ,
Damien's right on the money. I'd say it really takes some testing, trial and
error to find what works for you. Download them all, spend 2 hours on each
(though FarCry is fairly massive, maybe spend more time here just to figure
out how to really enhance it).
Take some time to make a map of
-Original Message-
From: Damien McKenna [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 30, 2006 2:39 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Framework suggestions
On Jun 30, 2006, at 2:15 PM, Russ wrote:
We are in need to build a fairly sophisticated system in a few months.
Are you
The session issue can be overcome for the most part with a hardware
load balancer that provides sticky sessions.
On 7/1/06, Russ [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does anyone have any thoughs? Whatever products we pick would need to be
integrated with session replication so that they could be load
60 matches
Mail list logo
