I hate writing CRUD statements !!!!

re: > With the exposure I've had to other technologies, I could not agree
with you
> more.

Sorry, assumed you were just starting out! (clearly not) I always wade in
when I see "newbs" on a bum steer.

re: It's frustrating supporting our legacy CF stuff when you used to doing
it
> quicker elsewhere.

I get in the other way around - converting cf code to newer RAD code.

re: CF often is overlooked amongst corporates due to questions
> on robustness and scalability (rightly or wrongly).

Not really the case these days - though MM/Adobe addressed it far too late.
Asp/php an dothers had largely killed it off before they addressed the
problems. CFs main problem is that it is so sloooow and painful to develop
with once you want to do more than just "script" a few pages togther. Adobe
keep trying to convince people that tags are not functions, but magical
creatures that write applications all on their own. People kind of know
these days that they are just functions and that CF doesn't even have that
many of them by comparison.




"Swampie" <webforumsuser@macromedia.com> wrote in message
news:f9otdh$8kf$1@forums.macromedia.com...
> @cf_dev2
>
> Thanks for the tip. I'll check it out.
>
> @Campaq
>
> With the exposure I've had to other technologies, I could not agree with
> you
> more. It's frustrating supporting our legacy CF stuff when you used to
> doing it
> quicker elsewhere.
>
> The marketing spiel I mentioned above was presented to me from Adobe reps
> at a
> recent conference. CF often is overlooked amongst corporates due to
> questions
> on robustness and scalability (rightly or wrongly). In response to this,
> Adobe
> have stated you should consider using CF for prototyping and rapid
> development
> and, if there is take up, move it to other technologies if you have
> concerns
> about scalability within CF. Strange..I know.
>

If you're used to using something else, than obviously you are likely to be faster working in that, versus something you are less comfortable in. For every .Net disciple like our troll here, there are many CF developers that find it far faster to work in than other options. Part of that is because there *are* lots of tools for doing the basics. Just look at all the great frameworks available... pick the best for you and/or your application and a lot of the work is done for you. Eclipse makes it even easier now with the frameworks browser. And for Crud...well, just get the Flexbuilder Extensions for Eclipse. They come with not only RDS support, but also wizards that will build out all your CRUD CFCs automatically. You can google to find others that have been written, there's a bunch out there, as well as the other's already listed here. Here's another one I ran across:

http://icegen.riaforge.org/

In article <f9otdh$8kf$1@forums.macromedia.com> "Swampie"
<webforumsuser@macromedia.com> wrote:
> The marketing spiel I mentioned above was presented to me from
> Adobe reps at a recent conference. CF often is overlooked amongst
> corporates due to questions on robustness and scalability (rightly or
> wrongly). In response to this, Adobe have stated you should consider
> using CF for prototyping and rapid development and, if there is take
> up, move it to other technologies if you have concerns about
> scalability within CF. Strange..I know.

Who specifically at Adobe told you that?

Either they need educating or you misunderstood them - so it's
important to name them so we can address what they actually said.

Sean Corfield
An Architect's View -- < http://corfield.org/>

--
I'm using an evaluation license of nemo since 68 days.
You should really try it!
http://www.malcom-mac.com/nemo

@cf_dev2

Thanks for the tip. I'll check it out.

@Campaq

With the exposure I've had to other technologies, I could not agree with you more. It's frustrating supporting our legacy CF stuff when you used to doing it quicker elsewhere.

The marketing spiel I mentioned above was presented to me from Adobe reps at a recent conference. CF often is overlooked amongst corporates due to questions on robustness and scalability (rightly or wrongly). In response to this, Adobe have stated you should consider using CF for prototyping and rapid development and, if there is take up, move it to other technologies if you have concerns about scalability within CF. Strange..I know.

In article <f9ojah$re0$1@forums.macromedia.com> "Swampie"
<webforumsuser@macromedia.com> wrote:
> Is there anything commonly used within the Coldfusion community to
> accelerate the writing of your basic t-sql statements ???

Transfer ORM.

< http://transfer.riaforge.org/>

Similar ORMs are Reactor and objectBreeze.

Sean Corfield
An Architect's View -- < http://corfield.org/>

--
I'm using an evaluation license of nemo since 68 days.
You should really try it!
http://www.malcom-mac.com/nemo

You might be interested in Brian Rinaldi's cfcgenerator
http://code.google.com/p/cfcgenerator/

re: The marketing line for CF, when compared to other server-side web
technologies, is that it is more suited for faster development of
applications.

Thats the bigggest load of guff. It was true to a degree ten years ago - but
now CF is severely lagging behind the likes of Asp.Net and RoR. In CF world,
you pretty much write all the code yourself.

Suggest you download the free Visual Web Developer to see some real
productivity. Or have a crack at RoR. Don't switch from CF as it has some
real advantages, but you should at least learn how/why CF is not really
suited to "faster development of applications" and understand that CF is
actually quite tedious by comparison.

re: is that it is more suited for faster development of applications.

Why would you believe that? What does CF have that can't be considered in
other languages? It uses tags - so what, therey're just the equivalent of
functions (lets call them "abstractions that simplify" ). Even crummy ole
php has a crap load more of these than cf does. Asp.Net not only has many
more, but allows for them to be worked with atrue RAD environment.

If you like the syntax - great. If you love the fact that cf comes with
charts and don't want to download free charting tools -great. And there are
many other good reasons to stick with CF. But if you belive that CF is
suited more than other modern technologies to Rapid Development, take a
reality check before continuing. For starters, the later technologies were
developed from the ground up to address the need for rapid development - so
it's hardly likley they all got it wrong and somehow left CF as the winner
in the RAD market is it?









"Swampie" <webforumsuser@macromedia.com> wrote in message
news:f9ojah$re0$1@forums.macromedia.com...
> Is there anything commonly used within the Coldfusion community to
> accelerate
> the writing of your basic t-sql statements ??? (insert, select, update,
> delete). Whenever developing coldfusion apps, I seem to spend an obscene
> amount
> of my time manually writing a model for these when I'd be rather be
> focusing on
> writing the harder logic. CFINSERT and CFUPDATE are not really real world
> options.
>
> I imagine if you want to use the cfqueryparam tag where appropriate, it
> would
> add another layer of complexity when trying to auto generate a model for a
> db
> table.
>
> What are our options ? if any !!
>
> The marketing line for CF, when compared to other server-side web
> technologies, is that it is more suited for faster development of
> applications.
> If that is the case, I'm not sure if working with DB's was considered. I
> believe other technologies offer more in terms of helping you with the
> repetitive basics.
>
>