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 Sean's
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
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 not
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 Hey,
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 framework
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
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 Soviet
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
possibly
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 that
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, Geoff.This
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 mean
- 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* believe Macromedia
screwed up.
No disrepect meant
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 programmers
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
frankly think it is without merit. I have never
.
-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 think it is without merit. I have never walked
with constantly dealing 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 think
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 | Principal
-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 crash and exposing
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]
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]
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]
[Fast Unsubscribe
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 things such as Fusebox? Have you
actively used them yourself?
Ken
_
[Todays Threads
-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.
And with all due respect, that's
---
-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 clarify why I made the point in the first
place.The deal
/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 clarify why I made the point
: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II
Ken,
Just wanted to clarify why I made the point in the first
place. The deal was, I went to check out sites of the day.
Buddha boom, budda bing, the page is crashed. *I* see the
error page and notice that it's running on Mach
II. Now here is what I
---
-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
promote the use of any one framework or methodology. In fact
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
curriculum is always going to be about
/
-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 using it themselves.Simply using
running on top of Mach II
Of course, there is the point of view that Sun doesn't
promote the use of any one framework or methodology. In fact,
they don't even imply their preferred framework by making use
of one. Further, even if any particular Java vendor promoted
a specific framework
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 of Mach II
Well I obviously disagree. The fact
LLC
Web Site http://www.webapper.com
Blog http://www.webapper.net
Webapper Web Application Specialists
-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
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
, 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 they
screwed
-
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 using it themselves. Simply using
]
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 view that Sun doesn't promote the use
of any one framework or methodology. In fact, they don't even imply
their preferred framework by making use of one. Further
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 complaining
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: 08 February 2004 19:34
To: CF-Talk
Subject: 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 complaining
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 architect for
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 on top of Mach II
I think there's
: 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 you choose to use. Do you not remember all the flak
about Google vs. Verity when it Macromedia.com's rewrite used Google
instead of Verity? I
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:cameroncf
ell: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 Mach II
For years, Fusebox has been criticized by those who st
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
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 of
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]
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 by sharing...
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 say my track record of participation in product betas is very
good.
You fixed bugs found
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?
Nice!
...;)
-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
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Macromedia.com running
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
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 it? is
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 help out
with
://www.webapper.net
Webapper Web Application Specialists
-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
/
-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
to leave our clients with the best result possible when we
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, who can
CFRANT
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
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
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
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 at the CFUG meeting where you
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 have never walked
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
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
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 knowledge of
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 Fusebox
[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.
[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 crafted design
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
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 worse.
I
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 have chosen
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
DRK
is
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 problem
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
community
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.
Perhaps
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 even
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
77 matches
Mail list logo
