Yes, a new codename for a new update to ColdFusion. “Scorpio” (which Tim Buntel and I announced at CFUNITED last year) is still the next major version of ColdFusion, but we have some goodies up our sleeve that you’ll really want sooner than that, and thus ColdFusion “Mystic” (as first leaked by Damon Cooper).
ColdFusion "Mystic"
28 responses to “ColdFusion "Mystic"”
-
how about poking a few more holes to see if some features spill out?
-
hmmm..
I’d wager it has something to do with Flex Enterprise Services and Coldfusion mixed together (ie lessons learned on CFFORM.FLASH?) -
Scott, functionality from FES would be great. I was thinking built-in support for AJAX frameworks could be coming as well. Ben’s been asking about Exchange lately too… wonder if that will wait for Scorpio?
-
BTW, I’d also love to see build-in support for ActiveRecord-style models. But if I were to wager, I’d lean toward Mystic having more to do with existing synergies with Adobe… such as improvements to PDF creation based on the Acrobat codebase, integration with Graphics Server, and so on.
-
Ben,
Can mystic be related to this post of Tom Jordahl ( http://groups.yahoo.com/group/flexcoders/message/27124 ) on Flex coders?
Is it also related to the CFEclipse project ?
Can you be a little less "Mystic" about this? 😉 -
I blogged my thoughts on what it’s going to be and why:
http://www.cbetta.com/blog/index.cfm/2006/1/6/mystic-river
Time will tell… -
Please: some aspects that are still lacking and still hurting CF in some parts of the marketplace:
– advanced data procsssing (a-la ADO.NET)
– session (and application) replication and management across clusters
– object serialisation
the last release had nothing in it for us
– flash forms couldn’t be moulded into our product and architecture. we eventually gave up trying
– we hit the boundries of cfdocument and went back using the iText library natively
– Verity turned out to be slower so we switched to Lucerne
– gateways were enterprise level ONLY while our 150+ customers (with a CF licence each) stayed on standard. OEM enterprise still isn’t *that* affordable…
"I was thinking built-in support for AJAX frameworks could be coming as well"
NO, NO, NO! – what works for your framework could be poision for someone else (not FlashForms-type workflows again?! Please!). Boost the core functionality, don’t lock things down into only one way to do things (otherwise you’ll end up in the mess that ASP.NET is in where it’s painfull work-arounds to overcome their view of abstracted HTML+JS)
"I’d wager it has something to do with Flex Enterprise Services and Coldfusion mixed together"
– too late. Should have happened 12 months ago (A La CF7)
Ben, sure you’ll find some people that have sucessfully used the newer features but I’ll wager their numbers are small (hands up all those seriously using flash forms in a commercial app?). Improve the core, don’t add yet more bells and whistles…
eh, my 2c. -
Hans, the Exchange stuff is important, but if we do it it’ll have to wait for Scorpio. It’s a massive undertaking.
Scott, ahem, I am not saying anything . 😉 -
Ben,
How about the next version have a way for us to upgrade our multi-server versions. There is nothing about how to do on the web and Adobe’s official position is that upgrading multi-server version is unsupported. If you’re not going to support it, then don’t have it. -
I agree with barry.b, especially this part:
"Please: some aspects that are still lacking and still hurting CF in some parts of the marketplace:
– advanced data procsssing (a-la ADO.NET)
– session (and application) replication and management across clusters
– object serialisation" -
Thank you barry.b for speaking some much needed sense.
-
Tony, what do you mean by ‘upgrading multi-server version is unsupported’?
BarryB, I appreciate the feedback, and will pass the message along. And I’d like to ask for you to do something for me. For printing specifically, I’d like a detailed list about what it is that did not work for you, with examples if possible. We do have a list of stuff to fix, but what I have seen are lots of little issues. I have heard statements like yours before, and I’d love specifics so I can push folks to get stuff fixed. Thanks. -
I’ve must of asked the question a hundred times on if you are using CFMX 6.1 in multi-server mode, how do you upgrade to 7.0? Every answet I got from Adobe was that you have to uninstall CFMX6.1 and install CFMX7.0. At least when I upgraded from 6.0 to 6.1, you had the option of running the installer for each server you had. This is not the case with 7.0.
-
I posted on Sean Corfield’s blog in support of Seth Petry-John’s idea that the var scope be automatically enabled for variables declared in cold fusion functions.
-
Could it also be that Adobe wants to quickly imprint ADOBE on the product name – and the exciting enhancement is simply a good excuse to quickly retire the Macromedia association?
-
Barry,
I for one am using data-intensive (and programming-intensive) flash forms on not one but two commercial-class applications. Given the choice between AJAX (pthooey) and FlashForms I’d take FlashForms any day. Hey, you asked. 😉
As far as integrating AJAX and CF, I don’t quite get it… unless you’re going to have CF generate client-side code based on server-side code, what’s to integrate? I suppose it could be done within the context of cfform, but it seems to me that should be a function of the IDE (like demoed at MAX with an AJAX tool in DW). I know a lot of people aren’t into DW, but it has its place.
xl, is that a bad thing? It IS Adobe’s product, after all… putting their logo on the box is rather a good idea, and it shows some signs of commitment to the product even IF this is a "big sound" update… though I rather doubt that Damon and Ben would trumpet so loudly if that were the case. Where does all this cynicism and negativity come from, anyway? Sheesh…
Anyway, Ben… you’re a cruel, cruel man… Damon too… for making us wait for ANY teasers at all! Egads. Then again, you knew that, so there’s not a lot of point in belaboring the subject. 😉
Laterz! -
I’m sure none of this will be included, but should be soon or CF as a language will quickly loose favour.
More OO support, interfaces, etc, etc, etc.
Full EMAC’s type scripting, ie stop us having to use tags if we don’t want to.
Breakpoint debugging.
Without these three things, I think Coldfusion will eventually die, seriously ask yourself if you were choosing a new language wouldn’t you demand these things? -
> More OO support, interfaces, etc, etc, etc.
there’s a real heated argument over on sean corfield’s blog on just this issue…(enter at own risk)
> Full EMAC’s type scripting, ie stop us having to use tags if we don’t want to.
you mean cfscript? I honestly thought that was fading away…
> Breakpoint debugging.
I too would like to see this but I thought it was too hard with the compile before run that CF does, yes? I used to appreciate this (and adding watches) in ASP classic with visual interdev – it was a lifesaver sometimes – but was easier with an interperated language…
> Without these three things, I think Coldfusion will eventually die
LOL! I’ve been seconded into the asp.net world ATM….oh how I miss coldfusion!
just my 2c worth, nothing more. -
I don’t believe that they can’t do breakpoint debugging.
CF5 had it, Java Has it, CF is built on top of Java, so it’s possible, it’s just a matter of priorities.
As for cfscript, the reason this is no good, as it’s not full support, it should support all comands, definitions, etc, components and functions etc. Then I’m sure most programmers will move to it, the day you can write an app without a tag, using both makes no sense so people stick with Tags as it offers full support.
I showed some C++ and Java people CF and they hated it because mainly
1. It wasn’t strongly typed
2. It wasn’t a EMACS style language
They liked the features, but don’t want to write code like that. -
Hehe… people have been saying that without this or that CF is going to die any day now, in spite of the fact that 2005 was CF’s strongest year in history. I can’t see it dying any time soon… so I wouldn’t be betting on it if I were you.
As far as EMACS vs tags… I think you meant ECMA. I doubt I’d switch anyway. Because it’s a compiled language there’s no performance gain to be had and tags are infinitely more convenient for some things. I used to use a lot of CF Script (and do once in a while now) but I wouldn’t want the CF team to waste their time on it in lieu of shoring up other features (maybe adding SSL support to cfmail and cfpop?). It wouldn’t be valuable enough to enough developers, though it may increase adoption among developers from other platforms. I have to wonder, though… why do people have such a bias against tags? If someone refuses to use CF because it’s tag-based their problem isn’t CF, it’s ignorance and bigotry. Anyone who would refuse to add a valuable tool to a toolbox because "it’s not ECMA" is missing the point. Does it solve a need better than other things?
Then use it. If you’re going to refuse to look at it, do so because you know it doesn’t solve a problem, not because you like curly braces and parens instead of chevrons and quotation marks. When it comes right down to it, it’s all pretty much the same thing anyway.
BTW – I don’t like Java or C++ because they’re strongy typed and have rigid rules about how one programs. I like CF for the opposite reason… it doesn’t. The others have their uses, absolutely, and I’ll leave the programming of them to those who enjoy it.
Just my $.02… freely given and freely ignored. -
I just wanted to speak up against the declaration of CFSCRIPT being dead.
You can easily use the full CFMX functions in cfscript.
Define them as functions in a file e.g. util.cfc, then create that as a component into e.g. request.util. You will have full access to the functions everywhere – I’ve been doing this since day 1 of CFMX, and switch to CFSCRIPT for virtually ALL my logic as I find just so much better to read.
So you have e.g. util.cfc:
<cffunction name="cfdump">
<cfargument name="todump">
<cfdump var="#arguments.todump#">
</cffunction>
..etc (do cfabort, cffile, cfhttp etc etc – also great for other generic utility functions that you often use)..
application.cfm
<cfset request.util = createobject("component","util")>
test.cfm
<cfscript>
stCar=structnew();
stCar.name = "Honda";
stCar.model = "Accord Euro Luxury";
stCar.year = "2005";
request.cutil.cfdump(stCar);
</cfscript>
as for looping over queries, you can access rows like this
for (a=1; a lte getMyCars.recordcount; a=a+1) {
writeoutput(getMyCars.name[a]);
writeoutput("<br />");
} -
Ben,
Any chance this could be added to the Labs site? Along the same line, when are the Flex 2 files going to be updated?
The Labs concept is such a great idea, but it would be nice to find problems/solutions in the most current build. I fear this may go the way of DevNet if it is not kept relatively up to date. -
Steve, yep, Labs will be updated when the Flex Builder beta is released. Stay tuned.
— Ben -
Ben,
Regarding using cfdocument to print .pdf’s. I would really like some way of peering into that process, or at least make it a seperate service that can be re-started independantly. If a .pdf has an error for whatever reason, all the user see’s is a blank screen, and the entire CF service has to be restarted.
Just my $.02! -
To me, the biggest gain and my biggest source of frustration with MX7 has been generating PDF’s with CFDOCUMENT. Fundamentally, I love it. It’s awesome to be able to easily generate documents like this. However, its warts (I still see some image scaling, I want fuller control over headers and footers, etc.) has me tearing my hair out at times. It would also be nice if there was a basic, built-in WYSIWYG editing component for forms…sometimes, setting up soEditor or FCKEditor just isn’t worth it…Flash-based would be fine. Finally, like others, I would like to have CFSCRIPT able to do ANYTHING that I can do in tags; specific examples are easily setting default parameters (a la cfparam), and being able to run queries and stored procedures via script without having to write an external function. There are also a number of things that I would like to see added to Flash CFGRID, primarily being able to easily link (HREF) cells and rows in a grid, or even being able to pass basic HTML through so I can put an A HREF in a grid cell.
Sorry if this is rambling and nonsensical, it’s late and I should be in bed.
Pete -
I’d like to see much, MUCH more improvements in the OOP arena. Things like a proper constructor, being able to scope a function in cfscript, properties that work like C++ properties, etc, etc, etc would be very nice. Replacing the useless cfxml tag would also be nice. One tiny other thing; it would be nice to be able to use normal operators in cfscript (save greater than and less than).
-
How about actionscript instead of cfscript.
And also I would like to see more enhanced debugging and tracing line by line realtime. -
My top feature requests include:
— Adding a <cfjson> tag that mimicks <cfwddx>
— The ability to merge/insert pdfs in addition to the other expanded processing options mentioned here
— Far better debugging support for ajax work similar to Ray Camden’s fantastic Cold Fusion debugging plugin for Firebug: http://coldfire.riaforge.org/. This method would have to work for CFC calls as well as standard page loads. I use jQuery, ext and ajaxCFC for pretty much everything now and debugging why an ajax call has gone wrong is a tremendous pain in the <insert random body part here>
And the biggest one:
— Adobe spending a few marketing dollars on ADVERTISING CF in some major publications – not trade rags (alone) but also in business week, forbes, and other high end business mags to build some brand awareness with the people I have to convince to use CF as opposed to .NET. CF is a superior platform to .net and php for web apps in nearly every way, but that doesn’t mean anything to people who haven’t heard of it or heard of anyone using it.
BTW, you can do breakpoint debugging from inside eclipse with fusiondebug.
Leave a Reply