Re: Macromedia.com RIP?

Or get in an infinite loop once Jeremy or JJ buys out Adobe... and changes it's name to Allaire Mingo. Mark Drew wrote: > Just as a laugh I put in www.allaire.com which redirected me to > www.macromedia.com and then, it redirected me to ww.adobe.com. > > I wonder if in a number of years, and ado

Re: Macromedia.com RIP?

On Tuesday 18 July 2006 10:01, Mark Drew wrote: > I wonder if in a number of years, and adobe gets bought by, say, apple we *shhh* :-) -- Tom Chiverton This email is sent for and on behalf of Halliwells LLP. Halliwells LLP is a limited liab

Re: Macromedia.com RIP?

Just as a laugh I put in www.allaire.com which redirected me to www.macromedia.com and then, it redirected me to ww.adobe.com. I wonder if in a number of years, and adobe gets bought by, say, apple we will have more redirections? (I am not implying that Adobe will ever be bought out by Apple, was

Re: Macromedia.com RIP?

On Monday 17 July 2006 20:59, Tim Claremont wrote: > Pinging Macromedia.com gets no response. If it used to work at all, all that could mean is that Adobe have more sensible firewall rules. -- Tom Chiverton This email is sent for and on beh

Re: Macromedia.com RIP?

For a simple, pure-CF site, perhaps. Macromedia.com, on the other hand, used multiple, or at least non-default, context paths (which break your cgi.script_name attempt), a whole pile of non-CF stuff (which wouldn't be affected by a CFML solution), and a bunch of mod_rewrite (which would need to be

Re: Macromedia.com RIP?

Only takes a min to make a site wide redirect... you don't even need to change the code... just plop this in application.cfm http://www.adobe.com#CGI.SCRIPT_NAME#";> -- ~~~

Re: Macromedia.com RIP?

Looks like the forwarding change for my particular bookmark took place in the last half hour or so. My original bookmark was this: http://www.macromedia.com/cfusion/webforums/forum/categories.cfm?forumid=1&catid=3 Which worked fine earlier today. It later resulted in no response. As of a few m

Re: Macromedia.com RIP?

http://weblogs.macromedia.com/mxna/ still works :) On 7/17/06, Tim Claremont <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I had some shortcuts in my browser set for Macromedia.com. In the last hour > they stopped working. > > Pinging Macromedia.com gets no response. > > Looks like Macromedia.com is now fully por

Re: Macromedia.com RIP?

On 7/17/06, Tim Claremont <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I had some shortcuts in my browser set for Macromedia.com. In the last hour > they stopped working. > > Pinging Macromedia.com gets no response. > > Looks like Macromedia.com is now fully ported to Adobe.com! > Not quite: http://weblogs.macr

Re: Macromedia.com Developer Exchange UI - is this Flex or CFFORM?

I think it's neither Flex nor CFForm. It came out shortly after CFMX 6. From what I know, it's a handmade RIA, built with Flash, and CFCs in the back end. Flex didn't enter the market for at least 2 years after, and flash cfforms not until CFMX 7. -nathan strutz http://www.dopefly.com/ On 2/27/0

RE: Macromedia.com Developer Exchange UI - is this Flex or CFFORM?

Looks like tables and links form here. -Original Message- From: Pete Ruckelshaus [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 11:54 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: Macromedia.com Developer Exchange UI - is this Flex or CFFORM? I'm trying to accomplish something close to what the Mac

RE: Macromedia.com running under Mach II ...

please leave this site or delete this email immediately." Ok ... i've said what i wanted to say. :) nando -----Original Message- From: Barney Boisvert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2004 6:37 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Macromedia.com running under Mach II ...

RE: Macromedia.com running under Mach II ...

I definitely see you point, Nando, but at the same time, the amazing fixation our society has on sueing eachother over frivolities demands such asinine disclaimers to pervade our discussions.  Have you ever checked out the signatures of certain people who post to the list?  I started seeing one rec

RE: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II

9, 2004 1:07 PM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: RE: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II > > ...and if you changed the road configuration between every visit would > it take longer for an American visitor to get where they're going? > > I'm not saying the 

RE: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II

with changing frameworks. -Stace   -Original Message-   From: Dave Watts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]   Sent: 09 February 2004 14:33   To: CF-Talk   Subject: RE: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II   > > I hear this "secret sauce" argument all the time and   > > frankly

RE: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II

List Administrator http://www.how2cf.com/   -Original Message-   From: Dave Watts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]   Sent: 09 February 2004 14:33   To: CF-Talk   Subject: RE: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II   > > I hear this "secret sauce" argument all the time and   > >

RE: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II

Comments inline...   _   From: Michael Dinowitz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, February 09, 2004 1:57 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II I understand the tradeoff. I'm just saying that MM is big enough with enough money and skilled programme

Re: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II

- Original Message - From: "Philip Arnold" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, February 09, 2004 7:09 AM Subject: RE: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II > > I think this is another example of where *you* bel

Re: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II

On Feb 9, 2004, at 9:56 AM, Angus McFee wrote: >  Macromedia would be better off using no framework at all. Let's face > it, a framework is just a loosely connected group of ideas anyways, > that offers a temporary development efficency until something new > comes along. I guess frameworks mea

Re: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II

On Feb 9, 2004, at 10:02 AM, Geoff Bowers wrote: >  Macromedia.com is *not* built in Mach-II.  The Dylan65 project was >  released well in advance of Mach-II emerging as a framework.  Mach-II > is >  being used for some specific point-applications on the website. Thanks for bringing this up, Geo

Re: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II

On Feb 9, 2004, at 9:09 AM, Philip Arnold wrote: >  No disrepect meant here Christian, but there are a few of us here who >  are of the opinion that MM selecting MachII to use on their site is a >  glowing endorsement of the framework Point taken.  I was referring specifically to the statement th

Re: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II

Philip Arnold wrote: >  The size of MM with their resources should have allowed them to build >  something from scratch which did the job perfectly, had no >  superfluous code and was optimized to the hilt would have made a >  better impression of the product as your pages would be the best they > 

RE: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II

> For years, Fusebox has been criticized by those who > stand at a distance and throw stones at it while > refusing to contribute or become involved in improvements > to it. While this would characterize my actions with regard to Fusebox, it would also characterize my actions with regard to Sov

RE: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II

> > I hear this "secret sauce" argument all the time and > > frankly think it is without merit. I have never walked > > into an organization and had trouble hitting the ground > > running because I had never seen the methodology, > > framework, or style in use at that organization. >   > [stac

RE: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II

> As Matt and Michael have said, the framework has code > which isn't required, and using it means that you've > got "bloat code" which is going to slow down the site > (a fraction) and cause complications which aren't > necessary I think this is an inescapable outcome whenever any generic fram

RE: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II

> I think this is another example of where *you* believe Macromedia > screwed up. No disrepect meant here Christian, but there are a few of us here who are of the opinion that MM selecting MachII to use on their site is a glowing endorsement of the framework It sounds like MM's way of saying "He

Re: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II

Well, in the interest of putting this thread to bed, let me try to wrap things up by saying that when Sean comes back, I will discuss this issue with him.  Although I don't have a problem with Macromedia's web team using Mach II or Sean contributing to Mach II development, his actions should no

RE: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II

This assumes the MachII wasn't the best solution for them. If it was, then rebuiling from scratch would have been a waste of time. It seems like MACR is screwed. Whatever code they use will be assumed to be best, even though a good developer knows that what works for one situation will not be best

Re: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II

> Perhaps Sean needs to make it more clear that his team's decision > should not be considered an endorsement from the company he works for. > Sounds fair enough.  I'm sure he will be happy to clarify the situation > when he gets back. > I think this is the critical point. For me, having followed S

Re: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II

I understand the tradeoff. I'm just saying that MM is big enough with enough money and skilled programmers to write some of the tightest, fastest, most optimized code around if they wanted to. The extra few dollars to make the code 'fast but inflexibility' (it really isn't inflexible, it's just spe

Re: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II

On Feb 9, 2004, at 12:07 AM, Michael Dinowitz wrote: >  The problem with every framework that exists is that it has to be > generalized. It is almost totally non-specific because it has to be > used on site A, site B, etc. This leads to code that may work but is > not the tightest, fastest or e

Re: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II

On Feb 8, 2004, at 3:48 PM, Matt Liotta wrote: >  If in this case, MachII was the best solution then the community would >  certainly benefit from understanding why that was the case. If not, >  many will just assume that is the case, which benefits no one except >  for the people behind MachII.

Re: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II

> Well, that's because these documents are hosted on Macromedia.com and seem > to be part of the official livedocs > (http://livedocs.macromedia.com/wtg/public/coding_standards/) so why should > anyone think differently? Note that the document is made up of observations made by people in the commun

Re: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II

On Feb 8, 2004, at 3:04 PM, Matt Liotta wrote: > Do you not remember all the flak >  about Google vs. Verity when it Macromedia.com's rewrite used Google >  instead of Verity? I remember that the majority of that flack came from you, just as you seem to be the only one on this thread who has a p

Re: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II

On Feb 8, 2004, at 2:18 PM, Matt Liotta wrote: > The fact they are using a particular >  framework implies that they choose it as opposed to other frameworks >  because it was the best. The DRK is another example of where they >  screwed up as it implies the same thing; that what they ship in the

Re: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II

On Feb 8, 2004, at 2:05 PM, Matt Liotta wrote: Boy-oh-boy. Where to start? > Macromedia >  should want to support everything and anything that the CFML community >  produces, but of course it is impossible to support everything. >  Therefore, they shouldn't support anything in particular. We hav

Re: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II

> Well, that's because these documents are hosted on Macromedia.com and > seem >  to be part of the official livedocs >  (http://livedocs.macromedia.com/wtg/public/coding_standards/) so why > should >  anyone think differently? > IMHO, hosting the documents on livedocs only makes the situation wo

Re: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II

> C'mon Matt, that's only cause you've had a long outstanding bone to > pick >  with them  ;-) > Actually, I meant a completely differently line of reasoning. Just to be clear though, I don't really have a bone to pick with them. -Matt [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast

Re: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II

>  [stacy] There's a big difference between you and an average developer >  getting up to speed on grunt work in a web app though. ;) > I don't believe the average developer is below being able to quickly get up to speed on an application. >  [stacy] Again, most likely a result from a well crafte

RE: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II

[Matt] > I think Sean Corfield's coding standards document is a perfect example > of where a useful contribution has turned into something else entirely. > There are many people who now consider the content of those documents > to be official from Macromedia, which can't be further from the truth.

RE: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II

> On the other hard, some people who don't use and/or like > Fusebox may have caused certain companies to behave that way. >  I have seen great CF folks (who are also non-fusebox people) > march into a project and (because they have a prejudice > against FB) summarily declare that "all the Fuse

RE: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II

> The problem with companies which demand a framework > is that instead of hiring an excellent developer who > has never used that framework, they'd rather hire > somebody who knows the framework really well, but > isn't as experienced with CF - I've seen job specs > where they DEMAND full knowledg

RE: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II

This thread has been interesting for a number of reasons.  I read most of the posts offered on this list because there is quite often a nugget of knowledge I glean whether the thread addresses a specific issue I happen to be dealing with.  I've learned a lot from those of you who have been most

RE: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II

> I'm not saying there are no negative impacts from selecting > one over another...I just don't think it outweighs the > positives and I'd have a hard time imagining any loss of > sales over the decision. How would you lose a sale? Unless your clients dictate what framework you work with, they

RE: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II

Yikes, sorry folks my commenting is hard to read...   _   From: Stacy Young Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2004 5:16 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II I hear this "secret sauce" argument all the time and frankly think it is without merit. I

RE: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II

C'mon Matt, that's only cause you've had a long outstanding bone to pick with them  ;-) -Stace   _   From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2004 4:06 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II >  I was there a

RE: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II

t saying there are no negative impacts from selecting one over another...I just don't think it outweighs the positives and I'd have a hard time imagining any loss of sales over the decision. Stace   _   From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2004 3:28 PM

RE: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II

I hear this "secret sauce" argument all the time and frankly think it is without merit. I have never walked into an organization and had trouble hitting the ground running because I had never seen the methodology, framework, or style in use at that organization. [stacy] There's a big differ

Re: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II

This entire thread is proof that many code-writers who have self-taught themselves actually believe that the only way to arrive at a solution is the one they arrived at after years of hacking away. It is also proof that the vast majority of intricate development efforts after sucking up a ton of

Re: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II

> This has nothing to do with “sauces” secret or not.  Our aim at > Webapper is >  to leave our clients with the best result possible when we design and > build >  web applications.  We want to make sure that they will be able to find >  developers if needed who can understand what we did easily,

RE: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II

- List Administrator http://www.how2cf.com/   -Original Message-   From: Mike Brunt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]   Sent: 08 February 2004 21:21   To: CF-Talk   Subject: RE: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II   This has nothing to do with "sauces" secret or not.  Our aim at Webapper is  

RE: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II

http://www.webapper.net Webapper -Original Message- From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2004 11:46 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II I hear this "secret sauce" argument all the time and frankly think it

Re: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II

>  I was there at the CFUG meeting where you presented one of those > alternate >  frameworks, and it seemed like a sound idea.  If you find the time to >  publish any more details about it, I'd be interested in learning more > about >  them.  Hopefully no Macromedia employees will use them or he

Re: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II

>  Your implication was that I don't attempt to fix things when I find >  something wrong in products.  Knowing of course that the ColdFusion > codebase >  is closed to non-employees, the literal meaning the question "When > was the >  last time you complained about something in CFML? Did you fix

RE: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II

n Simon Horwith CTO, Etrilogy Ltd. Member of Team Macromedia Macromedia Certified Instructor Certified Advanced ColdFusion MX Developer Certified Flash MX Developer CFDJList - List Administrator http://www.how2cf.com/   -Original Message-   From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]   Sent:

RE: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II

t be wrong wrong wrong...  ;) -Cameron - Cameron Childress Sumo Consulting Inc --- land:  858.509.3098 cell:  678.637.5072 aim:   cameroncf email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2004 12:41 PM T

Re: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II

> But it sounds like you are saying that MACR shouldn't use a framework >  because of political reasons. Are you saying that MACR should _not_ > make a >  technical decision or _should_ make a technical decision? If MACHII > worked >  best for them, then didn't they make the right decision? > Nic

RE: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II

ress Sumo Consulting Inc --- land:  858.509.3098 cell:  678.637.5072 aim:   cameroncf email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2004 12:36 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II >  I'd

Re: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II

>  You're right, it was confusing.  My point is really that if you think > you >  have a better solution, then that's great.  If you can change the > existing >  solution so that it overcomes your complaints, great, do it!  Either > way, >  build the community up and make it better, help others

Re: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II

>  I'd say my track record of participation in product betas is very > good. > You fixed bugs found product betas? -Matt [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]

Re: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II

>  I agree with you >  that some people will make assumptions because of what Macromedia > does in >  practice, and that's a sad fact of life that there's no way around. > Which is why Macromedia should have known better and avoided the situation to begin with. For example, it would take someone

RE: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II

But it sounds like you are saying that MACR shouldn't use a framework because of political reasons. Are you saying that MACR should _not_ make a technical decision or _should_ make a technical decision? If MACHII worked best for them, then didn't they make the right decision? -Ray > What I find

RE: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II

-- Cameron Childress Sumo Consulting Inc --- land:  858.509.3098 cell:  678.637.5072 aim:   cameroncf email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Philip Arnold [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2004 11:58 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Macromedia.com running on top of Mac

RE: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II

> When was the last time you complained about > something in CFML? Did you fix it? I didn't > think so! I'd say my track record of participation in product betas is very good. -Cameron - Cameron Childress Sumo Consulting Inc --- land:  858.509.3098 cell:  678.637.5072 aim:   cam

RE: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II

anced ColdFusion MX Developer Certified Flash MX Developer CFDJList - List Administrator http://www.how2cf.com/   -Original Message-----   From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]   Sent: 08 February 2004 20:05   To: CF-Talk   Subject: Re: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II   Interesting example

Re: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II

  Certified Advanced ColdFusion MX Developer >  Certified Flash MX Developer >  CFDJList - List Administrator > http://www.how2cf.com/ > >-Original Message- >From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: 08 February 2004 19:34 >To: CF-Talk >S

RE: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II

> I hear this "secret sauce" argument all the time and frankly think it > is without merit. I have never walked into an organization and had > trouble hitting the ground running because I had never seen the > methodology, framework, or style in use at that organization. > Further, as an archite

Re: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II

>  For years, Fusebox has been criticized by those who stand at a > distance and >  throw stones at it while refusing to contribute or become involved in >  improvements to it.  With Mach-ii, Sean is standing up as an > individual and >  taking a role in it's development, not sitting back and com

RE: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II

Simon Simon Horwith CTO, Etrilogy Ltd. Member of Team Macromedia Macromedia Certified Instructor Certified Advanced ColdFusion MX Developer Certified Flash MX Developer CFDJList - List Administrator http://www.how2cf.com/   -Original Message-   From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]   Sent: 0

RE: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II

> For years, Fusebox has been criticized by those who stand at > a distance and throw stones at it while refusing to > contribute or become involved in improvements to it.  With > Mach-ii, Sean is standing up as an individual and taking a > role in it's development, not sitting back and complai

Re: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II

bapper Services LLC >  Web Site http://www.webapper.com >  Blog http://www.webapper.net > >  Webapper > >  -Original Message----- >  From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >  Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2004 11:05 AM >  To: CF-Talk >  Subject: Re: Macromedia.co

Re: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II

oper >  Certified Flash MX Developer >  CFDJList - List Administrator > http://www.how2cf.com/ > >-Original Message- >From: Samuel R. Neff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: 08 February 2004 19:11 >To: CF-Talk >Subject: RE: Macromedia.com running o

RE: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II

] Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2004 2:19 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II Well I obviously disagree. The fact they are using a particular framework implies that they choose it as opposed to other frameworks because it was the best. The DRK is another example of where

RE: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II

A Macromedia employee's efforts at experimenting with and improving tools/methodologies frequently seen in the user community is definitely a good thing. For years, Fusebox has been criticized by those who stand at a distance and throw stones at it while refusing to contribute or become involved i

RE: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II

Webapper Services LLC Web Site http://www.webapper.com Blog http://www.webapper.net Webapper -Original Message- From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2004 11:05 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II Of course, there is the point of

RE: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II

tructor Certified Advanced ColdFusion MX Developer Certified Flash MX Developer CFDJList - List Administrator http://www.how2cf.com/   -Original Message-   From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]   Sent: 08 February 2004 19:19   To: CF-Talk   Subject: Re: Macromedia.com running on top

Re: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II

 > From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >  > Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2004 2:05 PM >  > To: CF-Talk >  > Subject: Re: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II >  > >  > Of course, there is the point of view that Sun doesn't >  > promote the

RE: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II

how2cf.com/   -Original Message-   From: Samuel R. Neff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]   Sent: 08 February 2004 19:11   To: CF-Talk   Subject: RE: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II   I think there's a difference between coming out and supporting a   framework/standard/whatever and usin

RE: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II

ailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]   Sent: 08 February 2004 17:24   To: CF-Talk   Subject: RE: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II   Jaye,   You can program things from scratch all the time or you can use frameworks   and available resources to make the program more efficiently.  The official   curricul

RE: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II

om/products/charting --- > -Original Message- > From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2004 2:05 PM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: Re: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II > > Of course, there is the point of view that Sun doesn't > pr

Re: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II

roducts/charting >  --- > >  > -Original Message- >  > From: Jaye Morris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >  > Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2004 12:17 PM >  > To: CF-Talk >  > Subject: RE: Macromedia.com running on top of Mac

RE: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II

arts: http://www.blinex.com/products/charting --- > -Original Message- > From: Jaye Morris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2004 12:17 PM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: RE: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II > > Ken,

RE: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II

s/charting --- > -Original Message- > From: Jaye Morris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2004 12:17 PM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: RE: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II > > Ken, > > Just wanted to clar

RE: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II

> -Original Message- > From: Jaye Morris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2004 9:47 AM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: RE: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II > > > Yep. Tried and tested. Found unnecessary.  That is the elegant > beauty of CF

RE: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II

gn studio // [EMAIL PROTECTED] | www.jayeZERO.com   _   From: Ken Wilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2004 11:31 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II > things as fuse box, etc. really are not needed. How familiar are you with Mach II and

RE: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II

To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II > things as fuse box, etc. really are not needed. How familiar are you with Mach II and things such as Fusebox? Have you actively used them yourself? Ken   _ [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [F

Re: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II

> things as fuse box, etc. really are not needed. How familiar are you with Mach II and things such as Fusebox? Have you actively used them yourself? Ken [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]

RE: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II

> For some reason the graphic got stripped out of the attachment.  Darn. The HoF lists are attachment free to stop any kind of virus spreads [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]

RE: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II

: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II I am surprised to see that Macromedia is using Mach II.  Don't know quite how I feel about that.  Personally, with the new CFMX 6.1 CFC's and such things as fuse box, etc. really are not needed.  What is of more interest is the

RE: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II

I am surprised to see that Macromedia is using Mach II.  Don't know quite how I feel about that.  Personally, with the new CFMX 6.1 CFC's and such things as fuse box, etc. really are not needed.  What is of more interest is the crash and exposing the error to visitors.  Nice. // Jaye Morris | Prin

Re: Macromedia.Com (The new site?)

alk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 10:05 AM Subject: RE: Macromedia.Com (The new site?) > So only Oracle is a "real world" database? Where do you get this kind of > information? > > Joshua Miller > Head Programmer / IT Manager > Garris

RE: Macromedia.Com (The new site?)

PROTECTED] * -Original Message- From: Thomas Chiverton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2003 7:18 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: Macromedia.Com (The new site?) On Friday 14 Mar 2003 23:21 pm, Joshua Miller wrote:

Re: Macromedia.Com (The new site?)

AIL PROTECTED] >> Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2003 6:17 PM >> To: CF-Talk >> Subject: Re: Macromedia.Com (The new site?) > >>>> From a UI standpoint it falls through on other levels. It >> seems like >>>> 24-25 >>>> items per page is

RE: Macromedia.Com (The new site?)

> -Original Message- > From: S. Isaac Dealey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2003 6:17 PM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: Re: Macromedia.Com (The new site?) > >> From a UI standpoint it falls through on other levels. It > seems like > >

Re: Macromedia.Com (The new site?)

> Sean Corfield: > > We try to fix bugs as soon as we know about them! Don't get me wrong. I'm really not trying to criticize Macromedia. As firsts go, I think both CF MX and the new MM site are smash-up jobs. As with all (or most) firsts, there are plenty of wrinkles that still need to be ironed

Re: Macromedia.Com (The new site?)

On Friday, Mar 14, 2003, at 08:10 US/Pacific, S. Isaac Dealey wrote: > Real simple stuff -- just go to the first page of the Devex and under > Applications > Collaborative Computing you'll see it says at the top > left > "Displaying 1-24 of 25 items" and it is indeed showing 24 items in the > lis

Re: Macromedia.Com (The new site?)

On Friday 14 Mar 2003 23:21 pm, Joshua Miller wrote: > Actually, Flash Studio Pro can access mySQL databases in remote > locations and they're working on MS SQL Server connectivity as well Well that'll be usefull in the real world. Not. Support for a proper DB at all ? I'm thinking one begining wi

RE: Macromedia.Com (The new site?)

o:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 14, 2003 7:23 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Macromedia.Com (The new site?) Actually yes, someone did say that Flash would replace Visual Basic. That's what started this whole thing. >You have to realize, what Macromedia is doing is laying the g

RE: Macromedia.Com (The new site?)

advise us by return e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] * -Original Message- From: Bryan Stevenson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 14, 2003 6:29 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: Macromedia.Com (The new

Re: Macromedia.Com (The new site?)

Adrocknaphobia Jones wrote: > Right on, but I think you put my concerns into a better language. Where > an HTML document is open source data You think so? You haven't been in news.admin.net-abuse.sightings lately I presume :( > a SWF is executable code. It seems > much more threatening to give t

  1   2   3   >