Kai, I don't disagree with anything you say, but really none of those points
counter what I'd brought up. Perhaps you thought I was trying to argue
against what you say, but I was just responding to the specific points I
referenced in Scott's post. I wasn't saying I disagreed with everything he
Sorry we'll miss you, Barry. And I realize you're asking more about those in
A/NZ, but FWIW I'll say that like Mark, I'll be there and will be
presenting.
/charlie
-Original Message-
From: cfaussie@googlegroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Barry Beattie
Sent: Saturday,
Like I said, I'm not looking to pick a fight, so the cracking knuckles
don't scare me. :-) Look, I'm just replying to the points made. You don't
need to see each response as a challenge to put 'em up, literally or
figuratively. Like I just said to Kai, I wasn't disagreeing with everything
you
Scott,
Just curious, when did you learn .NET? Was it out of a book? while you
were on a Coldfusion Job? or did Microsoft train you?
Cheers
Gareth.
Scott Barnes wrote:
Charlie,
Here we go.. I'm going to keep this onpoint as best I can as I
feel it's trailing off.
In many
Hi Kay,
the CFM file opens up nicely on the testing server, it actually uploads the
CFM file to the testing server and opens up in the browser like expected.
But files like CSS and JS do not upload to the testing server. Not even when
I PUT or check in the files.
When I check the files in they
Oh it's trailing off, all right, and honestly I don't see the point in
contributing any further to the headaches which surely must be arising from
this.
Let me state for the record: I'm not anti-Microsoft. I'm not even anti
ASP.NET. I'm also not anti-Scott.
I was just refuting specific
You Win :)
On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 10:18 AM, charlie arehart
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Oh it's trailing off, all right, and honestly I don't see the point in
contributing any further to the headaches which surely must be arising from
this.
Let me state for the record: I'm not
Barry:Would you say it's been happening for what? 5+ years now?
I'd really like to respond to this chapter-and-verse at the moment but
I'm really pushed for time...
but I will say that (IMHO) Kay Smoljak is right on the money: The
issue isn't a religious war. it's not good Vs evil or red
Whoa. You fall asleep for a couple of days and this happens.
Strongly agree with Scott and Kay. Don't lock yourself into CF. It's
very good but there are newer and (should I say) better technologies out
there.
However, the web has not changed much. Sure there's all the hype with
web 2.0, 2.0.1,
At the end of the day, ColdFusion is dead until Adobe stop making new
versions.
Since they just released Version 8 and are working on Version 9. It just
isn't dead.
Companies don't spend millions of dollars on dead products.
So if we wish to discuss dead products, let's talk about Turbo Pascal
*Q. How did we arrive at the conclusion CF Server = Dead. The perception and
topic at hand is the community around the product in a state of
decomposition? If so, how does one fix it. Not oh dear, Adobe are going to
abandon Coldfusion?*
I have serious doubts Coldfusion in it's essence will die
Strongly agree with Scott and Kay. Don't lock yourself into CF. It's
very good but there are newer and (should I say) better technologies out
there.
Just curious, what technologies are you referring to here?
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message
On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 6:56 AM, Taco Fleur [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But files like CSS and JS do not upload to the testing server.
Do the CFM files you are working with directly reference the CSS and
JS files? If not, you'll have to handle that manually... but if they
do, then you can reset
I only say better because they are newer. CF hasn't changed much in the
last 7 or so years since MX. But outside of CF a lot has changed in the
past 7 years, brings me to the conclusion that CF is dated.
Plus I really am starting to like the flexibility and features of other
languages, eg. OO
Dammit, I wasn't going to get involved in this thread past my blog
post about it
(http://kay.smoljak.com/index.php/opening-up-the-coldfusion-community/)...
but now I have to speak up!
On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 9:57 AM, Joel Cass [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Plus I really am starting to like the
So Robin, would you be interested in offering a talk on it at a
meeting of the Online ColdFusion Meetup (coldfusionmeetup.com)? I’d
welcome having you. We’ve had talks recently on MXUnit and CFCUnit.
Given your assertion of how much easier it is, it may be greatly
appreciated by many.
I don't agree that it hasn't changed much, it has changed
a great deal.
and
easy integration to Java code and .NET DLL's and MSExchange
cfdocument
cfreport
cfpresentation
cfmxml
remoting
webservices
everyone knows this sure, but sometimes it gets forgotten that it's
coming from/via just one
I've tried to resist... But I can't!
So CF has got all these great features, so what are YOU yes YOU going to
do about it. Just go back to day job and smile that only YOU know how
great Coldfusion is. Humm. Thought about telling someone else besides
your CF mates.
Considered a light
ahhh.. now this is a better conclusion to this thread..
You know on a side note and personal note, when I read internally someone
berating Coldfusion (simply because at times they don't know) i catch myself
evangelising it or correcting them on it. Now, do what you will with that,
but I get a
Robin,
Domain statistics don't factor into whether or not the said product is
growing or the community is growing. Owning 20 sites per client that mirror
the same code base is flawed theory. You need to factor in actual server
share (ie how buoyant is the ISP industry with it etc), Developer
On 14/04/2008, at 1:40 PM, Scott Barnes wrote:
Deployment is evidence but it can be false positive is all ;)
Sure, (we did in fact count individual IPs the second time but not the
first, so can't compare) - but it was rather excellent growth in
deployment, none the less :-).
Between
On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 2:02 PM, Robin Hilliard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Between reading this thread and responding to some rather
uninformed criticism of Cairngorm over on iconara.net this is turning out
to
He's not misinformed, Theo has some quite unique and valid perspective on
the
you can.
We did this so that if instance 1 dies, the task will at least get run 3
times an hour
it also spreads the work around - would be more significant for processes
that thumped the server and run more frequently.
On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 4:13 PM, George Lu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well,
Can I just second Gary's call to get out there in
the community - it's YOUR technology, YOUR career.
well, it took 100+ posts to come around to this being the best way to
shut up the doom-sayers (inc recruters may have assumptions we all
disagree with)
but we got there in the end.
here
Hi guys,
I'm in the market for a VPS provider. Can anyone recommend a mid-level
package that they've had good experience with?
Basic requirements
---
OS: Can be either Windows (I'll be using Apache anyway) or Linux
Location: Sydney is ideal but price
a quick google and then off via ad words found this for $100 pretty
much matching your requirements
http://www.web24.com.au/vps/204/linux_vps.html
On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 2:52 PM, michael sharman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi guys,
I'm in the market for a VPS provider. Can anyone recommend
Thanks Zac, I did see that one. Seemed one of the more reasonable ones
I came across.
I just wanted to know if anyone has personally used any that they'd
recommend.
Michael
On Apr 14, 2:58 pm, Zac Spitzer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
a quick google and then off via ad words found this for $100
I have been reading the release notes and install guides (I know, but I
needed to get some sleep and that seemed like the best way) :-)
It does mention that there are about 77 different combinations of
64-bit and 32-bit CF and IIS and Apache...you need to install the proper
web server
I have heard good things about:
http://www.viviotech.net/hosting_vps.cfm
http://www.hostmysite.com/vps/
But have tried neither.
Mark
On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 3:23 PM, michael sharman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks Zac, I did see that one. Seemed one of the more reasonable ones
I came
Do add crystaltech.com to the list. they have dedicated and semi
dedicated solutions... and the Linux dedicated ones are pretty
reasonable... the base windows dedicated one looks like it comes close
to your requirements...
Good Luck,
Chong
On Apr 14, 2:52 pm, michael sharman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
30 matches
Mail list logo
