I don't exactly see how YOUR comment was constructive either, but I decided I should respond. I did think about letting it go... but that didn't last long.
First, take a look around these forums and you'll see that I've been working Mark directly on a few of these issues, so he's aware of the tweaks I had made to my transfer installation originally... he's even commented about them. I've documented VERY well the changes I've made and Mark has actually started writing a new feature for ignore/skip of compositions/objects during cascadeDelete / Save based on code from I posted to achieve this functionality. So, yes, I have "let Mark Mandel know". Second, I've been contributing on here quite a bit, as well as on the ColdBox forums directly with Mark and Luis about some of these issues, so they are familiar with what I'm doing. The details of my configuration are no secret. I've communicated regularly with the Railo team, Mark and with Luis about what I've been attempting. This PARTICULAR post was a chime in because I was making quite a few other posts on here at the same time regarding these EXACT issues and it was just a little update for those interested. My one comment was not meant to be representative of my entire configuration. Not to mention I wrote it while mobile and had intended an update with details when I could get back to it but hadn't gotten around to that yet. Third, and most importantly, the version of Transfer I have working on Railo 3.1 is UNMODIFIED. I'm using a fresh copy of Transfer with no modification on Railo 3.1.0.022 and the same XML file works on both Railo and CF8. I am not using every type of configuration under the sun, but I'm using most of them and I've tested everything from proxy objects with and without lazy loading, many to one, one to many, many to many and just about everything else. I wouldn't have said anything, but you put the time and energy to come on here and lambaste me for something, so I took the time and energy to respond. I usually don't respond this way, but it's not like you came on here to play nice. I'm one of the ones who got his configuration working with a lot of changes to my XML file AND by doing some modifications to Transfer itself to try and do some testing. In the end Transfer worked the way I wanted without any changes to the core system. My primary concern in doing all of this was to get a cross-platform solution working, which I stated many times while posting my progress, and here you come telling me the point of using frameworks as if I don't understand that? Go back to sleep and maybe you'll wake up on the right side of the bed tomorrow. That, or do a little reading first. On Jul 13, 7:17 am, Shawn <[email protected]> wrote: > *sigh* I wish people would stop saying stuff like this. It minimizes > the problem. It's great that after tweaking your transfer.xml settings > you got Transfer to run perfectly. That's NOT the same thing as > taking a transfer.xml file that works on CF8 and having it run without > ANY modification in Railo. That doesn't mean it 'works'. It's a > workaround for a core problem. > > Or have you fixed your own copy of the Transfer framework? If so, > please let Mark Mandel know so he can apply these fixes to the > Transfer ORM framework. > > That's the point of a framework: You abstract out all of the system- > specific stuff so that the framework runs consistently across multiple > environments. Just because you got Transfer working perfectly > (congrats, by the way) it doesn't really contribute anything to the > core compatibility issues surrounding the implementation of Transfer > ORM on Railo. It's a variation of "Works on MY Machine". That > doesn't mean there aren't any issues. > > If I take my transfer.xml file that I have right now, and convert most > of my relationships to 'lazy="true"', I can get things to run, too. > Unfortunately, there are other parts of the code that expect some of > these relationships to be loaded by default (hence why I didn't use > 'lazy' when I defined them to begin with). > > In what way was your comment useful to this discussion? You got it > running? Great. Does that mean we should close the issue, stop > worrying about it, because you were able to get it running? How many > tables are represented in your transfer.xml file? Are all types of > transfer relationships represented? (many to many, one to many, many > to one?) Did you have to modify your existing (working) transfer.xml > file to get it to run on Railo? Or did you develop your transfer.xml > on Railo from the start, with the expectation that your app would only > ever need to run on Railo? > > So yeah, great, for those of you who managed to get Transfer running > on Railo, after who knows how many tweaks of your transfer.xml file > and rewriting of your code (which ran fine on CF8), congratulations. > This thread obviously isn't directed at you. > > On Jul 7, 10:31 pm, whostheJBoss <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I have transfer working on 3.1 perfectly. > > > On Jul 7, 7:12 pm, Shawn <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Bump? > > > > On Jun 12, 7:33 pm, Mark Mandel <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Luis - can you be more specific than that? > > > > > Mark > > > > > On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 8:06 AM, Luis Majano <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Sorry, forgot about this. Well the patch is to add a new attribute to > > > > > cfarguments called "passby=value" on all cases where recursion is done > > > > > and arrays are passed. > > > > > > On Jun 4, 5:51 pm, Jamie Krug <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > +1 :) Mark or Luis: do you happen to have this patch, or maybe point > > > > > > me in the right direction? > > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > > > Jamie > > > > > > > On May 26, 10:17 am, Shawn <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Patch? Oh yes, please! :D > > > > > > > > Glad to see you guys are working on this. > > > > > > > > On May 24, 8:25 pm, Mark Mandel <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Luis, can you send me a patch with the appropriate place this > > > > > workaround > > > > > > > > needs to be placed inside Transfer? > > > > > > > > > Mark > > > > > > > > > On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 8:22 AM, Kevan Stannard < > > > > > [email protected]>wrote: > > > > > > > > > > There was in good discussion on the array pass by > > > > > > > > > value/reference > > > > > on this a > > > > > > > > > while back: > > > > > > > > >http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg01670.html > > > > > > > > > > Sean clarified the Adobe ColdFusion behaviour as: > > > > > > > > > > Arrays are actually copy-on-assignment. When you pass an > > > > > > > > > array to a > > > > > function, it assigns the array to the argument, creating a copy. When > > > > > you > > > > > return an > > > > > > > > > array from a function, it does not copy it - unless you > > > > > > > > > assign the > > > > > result to a variable. You can see that here: > > > > > > > > > > <cfscript> > > > > > > > > > a = [ 1, 2, 3, 4 ]; > > > > > > > > > > function getA() { return a; } > > > > > > > > > > b = getA(); // copies a so b is a separate array > > > > > > > > > b[1] = 42; // does not change a > > > > > > > > > > arrayAppend(getA(), 5); // no assignment - a *is* modified > > > > > > > > > </cfscript> > > > > > > > > > > On Railo's compatibility; I would be surprised if Railo > > > > > > > > > changed > > > > > this particular behaviour for performance reasons. I imagine this > > > > > decision > > > > > was made to implement it how it should have been done in Adobe CF. I > > > > > read > > > > > somewhere that BlueDragon also implements array pass-by-reference (not > > > > > sure). > > > > > > > > > > Perhaps the problem is not with Railo, perhaps Adobe should > > > > > implement: > > > > > > > > > <cfargument name="myArray" type="Array" passby="reference" /> > > > > > > > > > > I do want all of the CFML engines to implement fundamental > > > > > > > > > language > > > > > behaviour in the same way, but I don't see a problem in this > > > > > particular > > > > > case. > > > > > > > > > > Fortunately we have a CFML steering committee now which should > > > > > hopefully maximise compatibility with CFML engines. > > > > > > > > > > 2009/5/21 Dan Wilson <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > >> You knowm I am of two minds about this. The engineer in me > > > > > > > > >> is all > > > > > about a > > > > > > > > >> more performant engine. I've made some design mistakes I > > > > > > > > >> wish I > > > > > could fix, > > > > > > > > >> for performance, for extensibility or for the good of the > > > > > children... > > > > > > > > >> whatever. Mistakes happen. > > > > > > > > > >> However, for Railo to change the way CFML works, and then > > > > > > > > >> tout > > > > > themselves > > > > > > > > >> as faster and better is a little bit rich. Sure you can be > > > > > faster/better if > > > > > > > > >> you don't implement everything ColdFusion does. But you > > > > > > > > >> aren't > > > > > fully > > > > > > > > >> competing then either, are you? > > > > > > > > > >> Take Chris's example, the xe.formaction='whatever'. Sure > > > > > > > > >> this is > > > > > slower to > > > > > > > > >> look up. Sure if I was writing an engine for pure speed I'd > > > > > > > > >> try to > > > > > not > > > > > > > > >> support it, heck it affects EVERY variable lookup. However, > > > > > > > > >> the > > > > > standard > > > > > > > > >> (good, bad or ugly) has been set for years and ColdFusion > > > > > > > > >> supports > > > > > it. For > > > > > > > > >> Railo to not support it means they are out of compliance with > > > > > ColdFusion and > > > > > > > > >> I would be very hesitant to use Railo on existing code for > > > > > > > > >> that > > > > > reason. > > > > > > > > > >> In short, I love the idea of Railo and I love the idea of a > > > > > > > > >> faster > > > > > engine. > > > > > > > > >> I don't love Cherry Picking which parts of ColdFusion to > > > > > > > > >> support > > > > > and which > > > > > > > > >> to leave off for performance, then selling yourself based on > > > > > performance. If > > > > > > > > >> Railo fully implements the ColdFusion spec, without requiring > > > > > non-standard > > > > > > > > >> CFML attributes, compiler options and the like, then I'll be > > > > > impressed. > > > > > > > > > >> DW > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > E: [email protected] > > > > > > > > W:www.compoundtheory.com > > > > > -- > > > > E: [email protected] > > > > W:www.compoundtheory.com --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Before posting questions to the group please read: http://groups.google.com/group/transfer-dev/web/how-to-ask-support-questions-on-transfer You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "transfer-dev" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/transfer-dev?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
