How about "comp.lang.coldfusion"?
Dave H
I've recently been thinking it would be good if there was a comp.*
newsgroup for ColdFusion. I was wondering what the general view would
be here, so I thought I'd put together a quick proposal and gather
positive or negative feedback.
If there's reasonable support here, I'll submit a formal Request For
Discussion on news.groups and start the ball rolling. If not I'll
probably forget about it. ;o)
Suggested newsgroups line:
comp.lang.coldfusion ColdFusion web application development.
SUGGESTED RATIONALE: comp.lang.coldfusion
The currently existing newsgroup alt.comp.lang.coldfusion is well used.
Not all news servers carry alt.* or alt.comp.lang.coldfusion, however,
essentially cutting off parts of the ColdFusion community. Almost all
servers carry the comp.* groups, however, which would make the proposed
group more accessible to users.
First released in 1995, ColdFusion was the first ever web application
server, with it's ColdFusion Markup Language being the first programming
language designed specifically for server-side web application
development. Now robust and scalable, there are multiple implementions
of ColdFusion available, including ColdFusion 5 and ColdFusion MX from
Macromedia, and the BlueDragon product family from New Atlanta. With
it's level of maturity, a group in the comp.lang.* hierarchy seems
appropriate.
Finally, many news servers give posts to comp.* groups a longer
retention period than posts to alt.* groups, which would be an
additional benefit.
SUGGESTED CHARTER: comp.lang.coldfusion
comp.lang.coldfusion is an unmoderated newsgroup for the discussion of
ColdFusion Markup Language (CFML) and CFScript. Whilst primarily
focussed around ColdFusion programming, ColdFusion configuration issues
involving products such as ColdFusion Server and BlueDragon Server are
also considered on-topic.
Other topics which may be discussed in the context of the ColdFusion
environment include: development tools such as Dreamweaver and
ColdFusion Studio; CFX/JSP custom tags and external objects; and
frameworks/design patterns such as Fusebox and MVC. General web
development discussion unrelated to ColdFusion is off-topic and belongs
in a more appropriate group.
Posts must be readable as plain text. Binary posts are not permitted,
with the exception of cryptographic signatures (e.g. PGP), which may be
used where appropriate.
Relevant commercial posts are acceptable, but should be limited to one
per month per product.
END SUGGESTED CHARTER.
Regards,
Dave
Adam Cameron
Adam
Andy J
Andy J
http://www.andyjarrett.co.uk
"Dave H" <d...@armaros.dmh.org.uk> wrote in message
news:slrnbipp...@armaros.dmh.org.uk...
Kasey Chang (remove EATSPAM to reply)
> newsgroup for ColdFusion. I was wondering what the general view would
> be here, so I thought I'd put together a quick proposal and gather
> positive or negative feedback.
It would have to be comp.language.cfml, since CFML is the language.
Dave H
I have considered comp.lang.cfml, and even comp.lang.cfml+cfscript; but
in my opinion comp.lang.coldfusion would be the best choice. I hear
people regularly refer to "ColdFusion programming" and being a
"ColdFusion programmer", but rarely "CFML programming" or "CFML
programmer". Obviously the name of the group (if it gets off the
ground) is important, as if people can't find it they can't use it, and
because of this I think comp.lang.coldfusion is the most pragmatic
choice.
I'm willing to go with the flow though; if a majority emerges in favour
of ".cfml" that's what I'll go with.
Thanks for your input,
Dave
Doug Baroter
DL
http://68.32.61.40/datadata/DataMan.cfm
Dave H <d...@armaros.dmh.org.uk> wrote in message news:<slrnbipp...@armaros.dmh.org.uk>...
Cam Penner
d...@armaros.dmh.org.uk says...
> I'm willing to go with the flow though; if a majority emerges in favour
> of ".cfml" that's what I'll go with.
I'd vote cfml. It's more probably more accurate.
On second thought, tuning and performance questions would be more
appropriate in a .coldfusion group. Tough call.
If the newsgroup is aimed mostly at language with tuning as a secondary,
then .cfml makes sense. If blue dragon and other cfml servers are
secondary, .coldfusion makes more sense.
I'm almost thinking that starting with a comp.lang.cfml group, and if
further servers become popular then adding comp.lang.cfml.coldfusion or
comp.lang.cfml.bluedragon for server specific questions would be better.
Having said that, comp.lang.cfml would probably handle the bulk of those
questions and answers anyways.
So there you have it. My two bits.
--
Cam
Andy J
better option. This group at the end of the day is a .lang. group but still
we get chat about security issues regarding the server, which web server and
even some CF Studio chatter (though this is getting quieter :o( ) But
anyway i remember starting out and naturally you just search for ColdFusion.
Even more so if you dont know too much about newsgroups or the language in
general.
The only other way i can see around this, though i would feel is a bad idea
is to have something like
comp.coldfusion.cfml
comp.coldfusion.server
comp.coldfusion.general
But again i think this would spread it tooo much. I personally enjoy having
everything in one room.
I tend to read most posts which either sparks of new idea's or just gives me
further knowledge in what i thought i knew ;o), from the language, to the
server.
So if i have to stick my hand up to me be counted it would be for
comp.lang.coldfusion. Just for ease of use and so "newbies" can find it.
Just my 2p's worth
Andy J
www.andyjarrett.co.uk
"Kasey Chang (remove EATSPAM to reply)" <ksch...@eatspamhotmail.com> wrote
in message news:XjmXa.648$Tl6.49...@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
Dean Kent
comp hierarchy to reflect the changing computing world? ;-)
Something like comp.webapp.coldfusion, perhaps (or something similar)?
This seems to fit into the existing structure of the comp hierarchy, would
allow various flavors of cold fusion groups (comp.webapp.coldfusion.cfml,
comp.webapp.coldfusion.security, comp.webapp.coldfusion.admin, or whatever),
and would allow other web applications to 'latch on' to the heirarchy as
well, if necessary. After all, as has been mentioned here several times,
there is more to CF than just the language.
Anyway, just a thought to add more confusion to the issue.
Regards,
Dean
"Andy J" <awjarrett[at]hotmail[dot]com> wrote in message
news:viushef...@corp.supernews.com...
Andy J
Andy J
www.andyjarrett.co.uk
"Dave H" <d...@armaros.dmh.org.uk> wrote in message
news:slrnbith...@armaros.dmh.org.uk...
Dave H
> Dave, so then after the opinions you going to go for it?
Hi Andy,
I actually sent an initial RFD to the news.announce.newgroups moderators
late Monday night, and I've yet to hear back from them. So, yes, I
think I'll give it a go and see how far we can get.
As far as name goes, the options seem to me to be:
(i) comp.lang.coldfusion
(ii) comp.lang.cfml
(iii) comp.infosystems.www.servers.coldfusion or similiar, c.i.w.*
being the nearest the hierarchy already has to "comp.webapp.*".
Whilst there's some debate on the name, I think the general premise in
the charter that the group covers both CFML/CFScript as well as CF
configuration issues seems to be accepted, which is good.
With a bit of luck the RFD will appear here soon and we can get going.
Even so creating a comp.* group is a pretty drawn out process that takes
months. It will require patience on my part I'm sure. ;o)
Cheers
Dave
Andy J
coverage.
Andy J
www.andyjarrett.co.uk
"Dave H" <d...@armaros.dmh.org.uk> wrote in message
news:slrnbj2vd...@armaros.dmh.org.uk...