Oh, hohoho. You got me, CFHour

G'day:
In slightly cliched fashion, I shall continue the overuse of this (mis)quote:

The reports of [CFHour's] death are greatly exaggerated.

It seems it was all a joke (not CFHour, I mean the announcement of their discontinuation), as they released another installment just now. I've not listened to it yet.

Yeah, so ignore this: "CF(Hour) is dead :-(".

Righto.

--
Adam

CF(Hour) is dead :-(

G'day:
Well that's a shame.

Encourage Adobe to relocate /CFIDE/scripts

G'day:
I was listening to CFHour just now - another good podcast, fellas - and Scott mentioned that ColdFusion doesn't help its case keeping itself secure/locked down because assets for CFUI tags are homed in /CFIDE/scripts, and /CFIDE really mustn't be exposed to the outside world.

Whilst there are various options to move / rehome these, I've raised a ticket to get /CFIDE/scripts to somewhere else "Isolate the /CFIDE/scripts directory from the rest of /CFIDE" (3732913), which says this:

Cheers lads

G'day:
I'm making a blog article out of this because I can't fit it into 140 chars, and I don't want it to solely be buried on a comment on their own blog.

If you didn't know, or had managed to ignore it, the lads @ CFHour, Scott and Dave, took exception to something I wrote a coupla weeks back, "CFML: where Railo is better than ColdFusion", and had "a bit" of a rant in their recent podcast "Show #207 - Ryno, Rocks, Railo Rants, and Scott (Box)". I thought their tone was perhaps a bit more intense than it needed to be, and some other people have said the same.

TBH, I don't mind. I'm a big boy, and I simply don't take offence at stuff. They're entitled to their opinion, even if I don't happen to agree with it. For the record: no, I don't agree with pretty much everything they said, however I do see where they were coming from. That said, there was never any anguish or angst between us: I was talking to Dave about tickets in the bug tracker shortly afterwards, and was in touch with Scott yesterday too. I consider them my mates, so they can say what they like at me.

Now, children...

... stop it.

CFML: All shouty and bitey... and it's not even me doing it!

G'day:
Scott and Dave (albeit: mostly Scott) from CFHour have a nice tirade in response to my recent article "CFML: where Railo is better than ColdFusion" this week: "Show #207 - Ryno, Rocks, Railo Rants, and Scott (Box)".

It's worth listening to (having first fast forwarded to about the 6m30s mark where the actual content starts; and the shouty bit about 5min after that) in conjunction with what I said in my article.

I'll not comment further as I believe their work stands on its own merit.

--
Adam

@CfmlNotifier and untriaged bug count

G'day:
Just a quicky. Scott and Dave had a bit of a strop at me today on CFHour: the "annoying Twitter accounts" reference in the show precis is a reference to @CfmlNotifier Twitter account. Which they don't like.

Follow up to "Preventing Adobe from messing with ColdFusion community projects" & the CFHour Podcast reference to same

G'day
Just a quick copy and paste job today. I put this on the comments @ CFHour because it was in direct relation to their coverage of my earlier article "Preventing Adobe from messing with ColdFusion community projects".

My comment was thus:

G'day chaps
Hey, I realise my headline was perhaps slightly inflammatory, but that was just a hook to get people to go "WTF is he on about now?" as are a lot of my "headlines". If you actually *read* what I say about "blame" it was just a reaction to what Ray said, and I wasn't really making too much of a thing out of blaming Adobe for anything.

Ray said "not Adobe's fault that it happened", and my point was that [action X] happened. This impacted [thing Y]. [action X] was due to an action on the part of [entity Z]. That being the case, the way that [thing Y] was impacted by [action X] is the fault of [entity Z], because [Entity Z]'s action caused the problem. Something happened due to Adobe's actions: it's their fault. I didn't suggest they did it wittingly or maliciously, but they *did* do something that caused other people problems.

I did not mean they should not do what they did. I did not mean that relying on the stability of a third party system that makes no promises about stability is not foolhardy.  I was speaking more philosophically than anything else.

And *all* I said on the topic was "Ray's response [...] is a bit unhelpfully dismissive here". Going to to qualify that I thought that was unusual. I said this because he was simply saying "well you shouldn't do that", but the unfortunate truth is there's no other choice *but* to do it that way given the options available. So simply saying ppl shouldn't do it is... *unhelpful*. I'm sure if there were other options, then the ppl would have taken them. For the very reasons Ray cited.

What I might have expected from Adobe was a "oh shit! Sorry about that :-S didn't realise you were doing that [etc]".

Also you seemed to focus a bit too much on what you're inferring I meant (which given the way you reacted, was pretty much a misreading of what I did actually write), without really focusing on what I'd prefer you to have picked up on which is a suggested project to get all the docs onto neutral ground and offer it as an API for all and sundry to use / maintain.  Which I thought was a good result to come from all this? Maybe not. A couple of people have been keen about it anyhow.

Still: no harm done. Good podcast all round.

Anyway... I do get where they were coming from, but I think it was based on an interpretation of things that has been unreasonably conflated, IMO.

I do also think there's a pleasing bit of irony that these third-party ColdFusion documentation projects only exist due to perceived (validly so, historically) shortcomings in Adobe's offering, and then they are undone by... the very thing they're trying to fix. That it happened is not pleasing. But the irony is.

If you haven't listened to the podcast, get over there and do so!

Cheers.

--
Adam

Damn you and your opinions, Dave Ferguson

G'day:
(Just kidding Dave... that's just a reference to Scott saying I'd be doing a blog article about you after hearing the latest CFHour: "Show #189 - Manage Your Indention").

This is clarification of something Dave did dwell on during that podcast, in reference to my article 'Really, Adobe: "NotWorthEffort"'. And to fulfill Scott's observation that I'd feed-back on what Dave said.

That article draws attention to what I perceive is slack-arse-ness on Adobe's part in how they dealt with a user-raised issue on the bugbase relating to the toScript() function (3041310).

The lads on CFHour made a few points / observations which are relevant, but at least partially tangential to the point I was trying to make.

Firstly: yeah, the code that toScript() generates works. It's slightly verbose, but it works. That's a very low bar to set though, isn't it? The approach taken here demonstrates a certain lack of finesse that one might expect from a function Adobe (OK: it was Macromedia) have provided to effect a better solution that just rolling one's own. And surely that's the intent here? It also kinda shows their hand in regards to their JavaScript capabilities, which seem to be "less than ideal" (I'd actually say: "not up to the job").

Slashes are not more important than people

First things first

CFHour is asking people to donate money for the relief of victims of Hurricane Sandy.

To encourage people to donate, they are running a competition to win a copy of ColdFusion Builder.  Details are on their site, but I've repeated them below to get the message across as quickly as possible (guys, please let me know if I don't have this exactly right, I'll update it).

Donate some money to a charity that is targeting the relief of victims of Hurricane Sandy. Take a photo of the receipt and post it somewhere on the 'net that can be viewed (obscure any sensitive personal info!), then tweet the URL along with a hash-tag of #CFHourCares.