macromedia.coldfusion.cfml_general_discussion
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Coldfusion 8 (I want it)

Subject: Re: Coldfusion 8 I want it
From: "Campag"
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2007 16:30:52 +0800
Newsgroups: macromedia.coldfusion.cfml_general_discussion
re:  you will find that databinding and
gridview/formview or whatever control you are using begins to lose its 
purpose.

I sometimes wonder what world some of you guys live in. Databinding has a 
purpose, and serves it really well. Less code, faster apps.

re: then programmatically create a connection string in  your web.config

I don't know anybody who creates connection strings in web.config! If they 
do, they clearly don't know asp.net. The second you use a grid view, object 
datasource, or any of hundreds of data aware components, a wizard generates 
the connection string in web.config for you. Its foolish and error prone to 
do this by hand. I have no clue at all where you are getting your 
inforamtion from, but its the opposite of the reality.

re: Then you have do the code behind page, call the connections and actually
do something with the form variables, like insert or update.

This is quite amusing - you act like you have no idea about the grid view 
(and other controls) abilities to handle all of this for you with zero code. 
Or how, if you want, you can 'plug in' via events to take complete control 
of all or some of the process. It's like you don't know about databinding or 
item templates. I suspect this is becuase you don't know a single thing 
about any of this!

re:  You can't in 'real world' 'practical scenarios' say that ASP.NET is 
faster, or
better looking than CF.

Far more, as in millions upon millions more, people believe you are wrong, 
and have chosen asp.net. Most chose it becuase of the very strengths you 
seemingly have no idea about. Technically, you don't really know what you 
are saying. Its clear that you are speaking based purely on your 'feelings' 
or 'emotions' and thats just a little silly.

re:  And Mister Compag how can you compare that to the cfform were 
everything can
be set like the default values, error handling, messages, etc.

How can I compare? Easy, asp.net does all this and far more. It's one of the 
major areas to choose when wanting to demonstate an asp.net strength over 
CF, classic asp, and php. Did you genuinely not know that asp.net has errror 
handling, validation, auto edit/insert/read, databinding, item templates, 
built in ajax support and generally lots more features than CFFORM? I 
suspect you had no idea about any of this when you made that comment.












"frank_tudor" <[email protected]> wrote in message 
news:[email protected]
> Campag you give the perfect world example.  But if you go into any 
> practical
> application development with ASP.NET, you will find that databinding and
> gridview/formview or whatever control you are using begins to lose its 
> purpose.
> So then you are forced to drag form elements and then coding the 
> form/error
> handling, then programmatically create a connection string in  your 
> web.config
> file.  Then you have do the code behind page, call the connections and 
> actually
> do something with the form variables, like insert or update.  Then you get
> something that looks and feels more familiar to asp classic.  Don't forget 
> you
> postback to either hide the form variables and say thank you or redirect 
> the
> user to another page.
>
> And Mister Compag how can you compare that to the cfform were everything 
> can
> be set like the default values, error handling, messages, etc.  Then 
> skipping
> all the database crap (since it is registered with the server), and then
> creating a simple cfif statement for the form submission response and
> insert/update cfquery code.
>
> You can't in 'real world' 'practical scenarios' say that ASP.NET is 
> faster, or
> better looking than CF.  Unless you are a Microsoft paid operative here to
> cause trouble...If that is the case, you should really spend your free 
> time
> helping the poor suckers on the asp.net forums figure out how to run their 
> $300
> copy of  Visual Studio to over their new $150-$600 copy of Windows Vista.
> 



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>