--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lucee" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lucee+un...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lu...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lucee/6962c695-46b7-456f-9820-df98c3de4e4b%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lucee/CAG%2BEEBzamBY1uLn-VAQOwmE%2BJ34wP0mdK9tKGD3aWtkySpr0rA%40mail.gmail.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lucee/CAG-7QUs8zsqk5vbY0wSRjKDaDEjK3VhNYSwFFFxu8vCR94TM2Q%40mail.gmail.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lucee/CAG1WijWdaBMq%3DwMuF9y3YQpSKqKUZTV1EnNZxTFWZC%2BZJB9v-w%40mail.gmail.com.
Another example would be this ticket that Adam raised:It is a typo in the source code, so why didn't Adam just fix it and submit a pull request for it? He doesn't need to know Java to fix this, he just needed to search the source for the string, correct it and submit the pull request, but he didn't, he raised an issue ticket for it and Micha has fixed it, but what a waste of Micha's time.
As Adam said on another post today, people sometimes just need to think more!!! :-)
ANY work on the Lucee project is now open source, if you don't like the name of the JavaProxy function do a pull request with a change of the name.
If you think the wiki content sucks jump in and improve it.
If you think we need to get the technical advisory board running, be my guest you can start it.
There are no sites here, I'm also only part of that community, maybe my voice has more influence than others, but this is because I spend more time on the project than everybody else and because I'm knowing the project better than everybody else
and to make one thing very clear, I have not seen a cent from LAS yet for my work (and Igal as well) and I don't expect to see one in the near future!
It is easy to complain that the wiki is not existing or minimal, the hard thing is to change that fact,
On Tuesday, 14 April 2015 00:51:31 UTC+1, Micha wrote:ANY work on the Lucee project is now open source, if you don't like the name of the JavaProxy function do a pull request with a change of the name.That's not a very well-thought-through suggestion. You clearly thought it was a good name,
so it would be completely inappropriate for me to unilaterally decide the function name needs changing, and then go change it (pull req needing approval notwithstanding). What makes sense in situations like this is to do exactly what has been done: discuss it. Although as I suggested: discussing it before hand would have been more sensible.
Not all issues need to be solved by hiding one's head in code, Micha.
If you think the wiki content sucks jump in and improve it.Where I actually have the wherewithal to do so: I do.
However this is a specious suggestion in the given context as the updates to the wiki we're discussing is details of the new work you've done, and (as discussed elsewhere), the community can't simply magic-up documentation for work you have done in private.
If you think we need to get the technical advisory board running, be my guest you can start it.This is also completely specious. I cannot do that, can I? Because I'm not an Association Member, I have authority at all, and for a technical advisory board to work it can't just be some people sitting around going "well it'd be better if it was done this way" if there's no buy-in from the people doing the implementation.
There are no sites here, I'm also only part of that community, maybe my voice has more influence than others, but this is because I spend more time on the project than everybody else and because I'm knowing the project better than everybody elseThat's not true at all.
and to make one thing very clear, I have not seen a cent from LAS yet for my work (and Igal as well) and I don't expect to see one in the near future!Well I feel bad for you in that regard, but that was your choice, I guess. And is completely irrelevant to this discussion.
I don't get paid for any of the work I do for the CFML community either. Which is, I think, pretty much how it works in a community.
It is easy to complain that the wiki is not existing or minimal, the hard thing is to change that fact,No, it really isn't. All it takes is for the appropriate person to get on with it and do it.
----Adam
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lucee" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lucee+un...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lu...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lucee/631b1ba7-d2c3-4e23-9b01-96fc26bd2486%40googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lucee/CAG%2BEEBzMawvPZowLig3ZRDM%3D3QTaRW5TZALc3J-GtYV4MY9FRA%40mail.gmail.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lucee" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lucee+un...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lu...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lucee/CAC_5Vopx%2B12R32xQ-iifRkjxfgN65C_dMs3o8-5acGZDjS75Gw%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
| ||||||||
|
| CONFIDENTIAL
AND PRIVILEGED - This e-mail and any attachment is intended solely for
the addressee, is strictly confidential and may also be subject to
legal, professional or other privilege or may be protected by work
product immunity or other legal rules. If you are not the addressee
please do not read, print, re-transmit, store or act in reliance on it
or any attachments. Instead, please email it back to the sender and then
immediately permanently delete it. Pixl8 Interactive Ltd Registered in
England. Registered number: 04336501. Registered office: 8 Spur Road,
Cosham, Portsmouth, Hampshire, PO6 3EB |
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lucee/CAFrbJ5WT%2B5DuE_ahnRPfO9DnX2J2kxjUNfyKFwKnaeBMMFyToQ%40mail.gmail.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lucee/586a6fa0-2dc7-4923-92eb-e017da837985%40googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lucee/CAFrbJ5WT%2B5DuE_ahnRPfO9DnX2J2kxjUNfyKFwKnaeBMMFyToQ%40mail.gmail.com.
/* org.lucee.cfml.Object */
component {
public function init(required string clazz, any constructorArgs=[], string initMethod="", string package="") {
if (len(initMethod)) {
return createObject("component", clazz)[initMethod](argumentCollection=constructorArgs);
} else {
return new "#clazz#"(argumentCollection=constructorArgs);
}
}
}
/* org.lucee.cfml.JavaObject */
component {
public function init(required string clazz, array constructorArgs=[], array classPath=[]) {
var obj = arraylen(classPath) ? createObject("java", clazz, classPath)
: createObject("java", clazz)
;
var args = constructorArgs;
switch(arrayLen(constructorArgs)) {
case 0: obj = obj.init(); break;
case 1: obj = obj.init(args[1]); break;
case 2: obj = obj.init(args[1],args[2]); break;
case 3: obj = obj.init(args[1],args[2],args[3]); break;
case 4: obj = obj.init(args[1],args[2],args[3],args[4]); break;
// case N: ...ad nauseum...
default:
var _args = [];
for (i=1; i <= arraylen(args); i++)
_args.append("args[#i#]");
evaluate("obj = obj.init(#arrayToList(_args,",")#)");
break;
}
return obj;
}
}
/* ditto for WebServiceObject */
/* index.cfm */
<cfscript>
sb = new JavaObject("java.lang.StringBuilder", ["initial string"]);
sb.append(", now appended!");
str = sb.toString();
componentName = "my.Component";
dynamicComponent = new Object(componentName);
dynamicComponent = new Object(componentName, {named:"args", work:"here"});
dynamicComponent = new Object(componentName, ["use","custom","constructor"], "__constructor");
websvc = new WebServiceObject(...);
</cfscript>
/* org.lucee.cfml.ObjectFactory */
component {
public static function Java(required string clazz, array constructorArgs=[], array classPath=[]) { ... }
public static function Component(required string clazz, any constructorArgs=[], string initMethod="", string package="") { ... }
public static function WebService(...) { ... }
}
/* index.cfm */
<cfscript>
sb = ObjectFactory::Java("java.lang.StringBuilder", ["initial string"]);
sb.append(", now appended!");
str = sb.toString();
componentName = "my.Component";
dynamicComponent = ObjectFactory::Component(componentName);
dynamicComponent = ObjectFactory::Component(componentName, {named:"args", work:"here"});
dynamicComponent = ObjectFactory::Component(componentName, ["use","custom","constructor"], "__constructor");
websvc = ObjectFactory::WebService(...);
</cfscript>
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lucee/CAFrbJ5WT%2B5DuE_ahnRPfO9DnX2J2kxjUNfyKFwKnaeBMMFyToQ%40mail.gmail.com.
No idea what the word "proxy" is meant to mean in the context of these function calls. To me you are not proxying anything, you are creating a object of a class (Java) or a web service (SOAP).
The web service is the HTTP address: the object one creates here is a proxy to that.
Micha is suggesting deprecating the createObject() functionality
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lucee" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lucee+un...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lu...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lucee/1102ffc9-419e-423a-be9b-f89277b96b18%40googlegroups.com.
Couple of things:The web service is the HTTP address: the object one creates here is a proxy to that.Emm, this is used to connect to SOAP (Simple Object Access Protocol) web services, so I'm sorry it doesn't return a proxy it returns an object, the give away is in the second word of the name of the protocol!!! :-)
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lucee" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lucee+un...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lu...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lucee/b4402173-edc5-4088-94b5-bfe94d8b99c0%40googlegroups.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lucee" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lucee+un...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lu...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lucee/1102ffc9-419e-423a-be9b-f89277b96b18%40googlegroups.com.
"from a CFML perspective what is returned is a Java object"That is the reason I have used the word proxy in the first place, because this is wrong and most people use this functionality wrong what leads to overhead in their code.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lucee" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lucee+un...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lu...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lucee/1f9740b4-677f-432c-9527-e72910034e8b%40googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lucee/CAG%2BEEBzNFXtZ6sZqrKL%3D3PwE5iAJv7i4kvAEYYuB0vNUFJHZOg%40mail.gmail.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lucee/CAOPrabVwiWFOoET8oKtt_B5kzP%2BFSCEcVNnqT_Um0XgcOYr8CA%40mail.gmail.com.
I did CFML long before I have started Railo and I always have made this distinction, so if you speak for CFML devs you are not speaking for me and everyone I have reached this ;-)
If you read to the end you will see that I already agreed with you that this distinction doesn't matter...
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lucee" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lucee+un...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lu...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lucee/0646f4e8-25df-40f1-805f-c763f1d56734%40googlegroups.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lucee" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lucee+un...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lu...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lucee/0646f4e8-25df-40f1-805f-c763f1d56734%40googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lucee/181A3F2E-66DC-4951-9C60-8352C1D8A534%40gmail.com.
Don't call me a liar!
But don’t break _a lot_ of existing CFML code that exists out there.I would never allow that!!!!CreateObject is not touced at all, it is only deprecated (what only has a small influence on the documentation) , it needs a lot that i remove a deprecated functionality.I only remove a deprecated functionality if nearly nobody use it and there is a possible harm with it.I was for example considering to remove <cfservlet> what was never supported in Railo/Lucee (it only throws a "not supported exception") but it is still in the core (only CFML) because it does no harm.
Based on the history of CFML it is a good bet that createObject() will never be removed.
What @micha is trying to say -- i believe -- is that Lucee will not attempt to extend or improve createObject().
In order to improve on createObject() we have no choice but to create a new set of functions.
Lets not run amok with wild stories of "createObject() will be removed and break all existing CFML apps".
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lucee" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lucee+un...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lu...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lucee/CAD4thx9ASSoMgytSk1FFp%3Dw-0VBMD_Bes5Vcs%2BMJJ2fmJgUx3g%40mail.gmail.com.
100% agree with Sean on all the points below.
In order to improve on createObject() we have no choice but to create a new set of functions.BS.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lucee" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lucee+un...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lu...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lucee/2a2f0e0a-6191-4407-9309-7c32bec00d07%40googlegroups.com.
@sean I'm sorry to hear that of course it is your decision. I did my best to have a as good as possible doc in place, I'm sorry this was not enough.
Since the switch to Lucee our resources are very limited, we will try to improve the doc as fast as possible. Btw the doc was updated with the new function yesterday. It would help if you or someone else would point out what pieces you miss in the doc, if you can.
Modifying createObject, vs. encouraging the use of namesAreHard(), makes
for code that is harder to port-- you'd need a regex grep to find the
difference without a language parser, vs. a simple grep.
there's plenty of substance we could be focused on.
I get the "without code changes" bit, however the "without using
deprecated features" (functions for which a better alternative exists)
bit is unfeasible-- there are already a ton of "better ways" to do
things in Lucee. Deprecation is a way of communicating this to people,
while not breaking code.
Lucee is forcing me to write code that depends on deprecated features in order to run that code unchanged on multiple engines. That is a bad thing.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lucee" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lucee+un...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lu...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lucee/1ed04aa3-a54e-4251-87f4-be3a2e153d2e%40googlegroups.com.
Deprecation has a common meaning — and you are trying to bend that to your will to avoid the point being made here. I can see why Adam has gotten so angry when trying to get a straight answer out of the Lucee team.
I didn't want to have to bust the link-to-the-definition type deal, but what the hey:
http://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/api/java/lang/Deprecated.html
https://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/technotes/guides/javadoc/deprecation/deprecation.html
I think createObject fits the bill. Deprecated does not mean incompatible. How would deprecating something - just deprecating, not removing - break existing code?
What is the point you are trying to make? I'm not being obtuse on purpose, it seems like createObject needs to be deprecated, and that the reasons thus far for not doing so are weak. I'm surprised you do not agree- only sometimes calling init() "smells" good to you?
Plenty of answers have been given, they've been strait, and polite. It's OK not to agree on things - it's *good* to have different views, even, to prevent "group think". Expressing them constructively is just more efficient is all.
-Den
Stop muddying the waters with such weasel wording.
Deprecation has a common meaning — and you are trying to bend that to your will to avoid the point being made here.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lucee/CAOe-Q13p1w6jeTZrMBG%2ByB_XcPCZRq%3Dcr%3D-A%3DOB6X0VqYxNYqw%40mail.gmail.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lucee" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lucee+un...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lu...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lucee/9ADB6C00-F460-4137-874F-F175D7200B99%40corfield.org.
|
|
CONFIDENTIAL AND PRIVILEGED - This e-mail and any attachment is intended solely for the addressee, is strictly confidential and may also be subject to legal, professional or other privilege or may be protected by work product immunity or other legal rules. If you are not the addressee please do not read, print, re-transmit, store or act in reliance on it or any attachments. Instead, please email it back to the sender and then immediately permanently delete it. Pixl8 Interactive Ltd Registered in England. Registered number: 04336501. Registered office: 8 Spur Road, Cosham, Portsmouth, Hampshire, PO6 3EB |
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lucee" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lucee+un...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lu...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lucee/5534BF6B.6040901%40gmail.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lucee" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lucee+un...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lu...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lucee/8802cfbe-f088-4170-aa13-0cc97adb2710%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Adam, please stop this. That documentation is fundamental is well understood and steps are being taken to get both process and documentation in place. This can not happen overnight however, and continually harassing a single person in public will not help (Micha alone can not do this).If you really must take issue with Micha in this way, please do so in private.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lucee" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lucee+un...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lu...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lucee/dc95a52d-3dd1-4486-babb-e46effcebcf8%40googlegroups.com.
|
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lucee" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lucee+un...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lu...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lucee/e9eeaaa0-20f3-4040-8969-04a80b6c05f1%40googlegroups.com.
One of the warts is of course documentation. It would help a lot if the effort was financed. I have no idea what a reasonable budget for this might be, but I'll throw a number out - $50,000. Explanatory text, really good examples, excellent user interface, complete and comprehensive. There's over a thousand tags and functions. That's about $50 each. That's a good chunk of money, but if everyone on this list chipped in $100, we'd have it raised. Doable if we pull together.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lucee" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lucee+un...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lu...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lucee/bfdedd1b-1977-4450-812b-fdd3c2b70c08%40googlegroups.com.
Adam,Whether or not it is done "for free", I still see that there are in the range of 1000 items of documentation to complete, for functions, tags and objects/member functions. Developing good examples and writing a description for some of these, like the cfset tag, will be quick. Others might easily take more than an hour.So give or take, let's call it 1000 hours of work. I'm assuming, like other technical writing, it will all need to be gone over more than once. If you can spare 10 hours a week, it'll take you 2 years. If I'm overestimating by half, it'll take you a year. Will you get fed up after a few weeks or months? Have other priorities arise? I think that's likely enough that it should be anticipated.Those are the sort of thoughts that are running through my mind when I think that maybe the project deserves a budget.
Or we could think smart. the CF9 docs are CC licensed, and there is a phenomenal overlap with Lucee there. That work has been done and Adobe are happy for the gen. pop. to use 'em. Their narrative and examples aren't great in a lot of areas, but they're still better than what Lucee currently has. I've converted it all to subsectioned (eg: spec, history, description, etc) JSON, which would make it bloody easy to initially import.
CF 10 docs are as well, CC 3 - by-nc-sa, which shouldn’t be an issue as long as LAS is happy to attribute Adobe license-compliant.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lucee/CAGHrs%3D8DW-_cTeniteGVp3cpp5GWHHyWRHz9HzVywzXxC1666w%40mail.gmail.com.