I'm working on an overhaul of the OpenBD admin console and "API" (in quotes
because I fully realize the term API can only be applied loosely to what's
there now), and wanted to get people's feedback on a couple of things.
First, will it impact anyone significantly if the structure of the code
changes substantially? I'm referring to things like where the files are
with this question. I just don't have any insight into what if anything
people might be doing directly with the CFCs under the adminapi directory
for example (which is where all the action is).
Second, and related, will it impact anyone if a true RESTful API is created
and you have to use that vs. messing with the CFCs directly?
Also if you have anything you'd like to see or like to see different in the
admin console I'm always open to feedback. Since I don't get a lot I'm
assuming that for the most part it does what it needs to do, but if that
isn't the case be sure and let us know.
Matthew Woodward said the following on 07/29/2012 04:02 PM:
> I'm working on an overhaul of the OpenBD admin console and "API" (in > quotes because I fully realize the term API can only be applied > loosely to what's there now), and wanted to get people's feedback on a > couple of things.
> First, will it impact anyone significantly if the structure of the > code changes substantially? I'm referring to things like where the > files are with this question. I just don't have any insight into what > if anything people might be doing directly with the CFCs under the > adminapi directory for example (which is where all the action is).
Mach-II does some stuff in the 1.9 BER with the CFCs directly, but that is easily fixed.
> Second, and related, will it impact anyone if a true RESTful API is > created and you have to use that vs. messing with the CFCs directly?
I think we need to offer both in this case. If we have a properly designed CFC API, the REST is merely a security and thin interface to that.
-- Peter J. Farrell
OpenBD Steering Committee / Mach-II Lead Developer
pe...@mach-ii.com
p...@maestropublishing.com
http://blog.maestropublishing.com Identi.ca / Twitter: @maestrofjp
I would like to see an add-on for the Oracle Datasource where one can
specify the connect string for RAC instances...
I can bring how the connectstring should look like in the end...
/Mats/
On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 7:30 PM, Peter J. Farrell <pe...@mach-ii.com> wrote:
> Matthew Woodward said the following on 07/29/2012 04:02 PM:
> I'm working on an overhaul of the OpenBD admin console and "API" (in
>> quotes because I fully realize the term API can only be applied loosely to
>> what's there now), and wanted to get people's feedback on a couple of
>> things.
>> First, will it impact anyone significantly if the structure of the code
>> changes substantially? I'm referring to things like where the files are
>> with this question. I just don't have any insight into what if anything
>> people might be doing directly with the CFCs under the adminapi directory
>> for example (which is where all the action is).
> Mach-II does some stuff in the 1.9 BER with the CFCs directly, but that is
> easily fixed.
> Second, and related, will it impact anyone if a true RESTful API is
>> created and you have to use that vs. messing with the CFCs directly?
> I think we need to offer both in this case. If we have a properly
> designed CFC API, the REST is merely a security and thin interface to that.
Mats Stromberg said the following on 07/30/2012 12:37 PM:
> I would like to see an add-on for the Oracle Datasource where one can > specify the connect string for RAC instances...
> I can bring how the connectstring should look like in the end...
> Mats Stromberg said the following on 07/30/2012 12:37 PM:
> I would like to see an add-on for the Oracle Datasource where one can
>> specify the connect string for RAC instances...
>> I can bring how the connectstring should look like in the end...
Questions: 1. When multiple applications are running on one server (Jetty, ready 2 run on Windows 7 Pro), which Admin works for which application? I have had to copy bluedragon.xml files around when I set a DSN or something else in what I thought was the "live" admin, only to find that I was updating a different bluedragon.xml.
which leads me to another probably very basic question (a little chagrined since I have been coding in CF since 1997, and using BlueDragon since it was available, and OpenBD since it was available)
2. Do I need a separate WEB-INF in each of my application's folder structure? It seems that I do, but feels silly every time I do an upgrade and have to paste the new jar files to multiple places. Again, Jetty, Ready 2 Run. I have a few boxes running with the Windows Installer Tomcat version.
Issues:
3. (May be related to the above). Scheduled Tasks don't always seem to stick. I enter them through the Admin, then sometimes they aren't visible. Changes have been made to the bluedragon.xml, but not visible through the Admin UI. On one server, there are ghost (since I cannot see them in the Admin UI for the application that the task is supposed to be working for) scheduled tasks that are running every 4 hours between 8AM and 9PM, but not visible via the Admin UI. Version 2.0 (June 7, 2012). [Update: I see the tasks in another bluedragon.xml, and now that I ported the Administrator folder over, I can see the task via the UI, and have deleted it]
4. Collections are set via the UI, then not visible through the UI - I have reported this as an issue earlier this year, and ended up giving up. I see them in the bluedragon.xml, but not via the UI, and when I run the code, the collections are not present consistently. Sometimes they work, and then I reindex, and then they are gone and I need to start over.
Overall, I am still super pleased with OpenBD as my app server, and can spend so much more time designing, being creative and coding than configuring or screwing around making tools that should exist but don't. I have converted a couple developers to switch to OpenBD recently - one from PHP and one from asp.net, and they can't get over how easy it is to get started and do what they want to get done.
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 11:27 AM, Robert Whitton <whitt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have a question and a couple of issues...
> Questions:
> 1. When multiple applications are running on one server (Jetty, ready 2
> run on Windows 7 Pro), which Admin works for which application?
I may not be understanding your question but in that setup each app has its
own admin.
> I have had to copy bluedragon.xml files around when I set a DSN or
> something else in what I thought was the "live" admin, only to find that I
> was updating a different bluedragon.xml.
> 2. Do I need a separate WEB-INF in each of my application's folder
> structure? It seems that I do, but feels silly every time I do an upgrade
> and have to paste the new jar files to multiple places.
If you're running multiple independent apps, yes.
If you want a single-instance install, that's what Jordan's installers do,
in which case there's only one admin and the OpenBD engine is shared by all
your apps.
Is there any possibility OpenBD will get any of that cool functionality that Railo has where every app has it's own admin page? I remember them demoing something like that during Open CF Summit. I guess the main use was for CFML host or people using CFML hosting, but I figured it's somewhat related.
Also, there's another thread going on talking about what "apps" OpenBD needs and that's great, but what I find OpenBD really needs is more host supporting it. You all know I like OpenBD, but I consider myself mainly a dev and not so much a network/infrastructure guy. I would love if more host supported OpenBD. Most only do Adobe CF and Railo.
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 12:02 PM, Aaron J. White <a...@aaronjwhite.org> wrote:
> Is there any possibility OpenBD will get any of that cool functionality
> that Railo has where every app has it's own admin page?
It does, if you have individual apps.
I can't speak for Alan but I don't think there's any plans in the works to
do the split server admin/web admin setup (which personally I find quite
goofy to be honest).
> I remember them demoing something like that during Open CF Summit. I guess
> the main use was for CFML host or people using CFML hosting, but I figured
> it's somewhat related.
Right, it's a very limited use case which from my perspective isn't worth
the effort and comes with its share of issues. Nothing against Railo, more
power to them if that's what their userbase wants/needs, I've just always
found it quite odd.
> but what I find OpenBD really needs is more host supporting it
You mean shared hosting? I guess I don't understand when people bring this
up ideally what they'd like to see. Shared hosting is garbage, you can get
a VPS for a song these days, there's cloud solutions like CloudBees and
Jelastic ... what specifically do you mean here?
Matthew Woodward said the following on 08/01/2012 02:31 PM:
> On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 12:02 PM, Aaron J. White <a...@aaronjwhite.org > <mailto:a...@aaronjwhite.org>> wrote:
> Is there any possibility OpenBD will get any of that cool
> functionality that Railo has where every app has it's own admin page?
> It does, if you have individual apps.
> I can't speak for Alan but I don't think there's any plans in the > works to do the split server admin/web admin setup (which personally I > find quite goofy to be honest).
In all honesty, if you want an admin per application -- then deploy them as separate installations (I.e. war).
On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 at 1:32 PM, Confused <kludgema...@gmail.com> wrote:
> But if I could sort by start time, I could eliminate that db table and go
> back to single-step task managment.
That should be doable in this release. Appreciate the suggestion, and
welcome!
