Ditto... My new job is working with PHP4!
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Osborne [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: 13 September 2000 17:11
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Apache vs. Cold Fusion (was HPWorld 2000 On Sunday)
>
>
> Agreed,
>
> I'm hooked on PHP. I'm currently investigating the best way
> for more direct
> Image access then calling CGI's through PHP. It is very
> powerful & runs
> completely on the e3000 so stability is not an issue. The
> documentation
> from php.net is incredible, you do not need to buy anything
> to get into
> php. Because PHP actually runs as a module under Apache,
> there is no start
> time overhead to call it either (same idea as mod_jserv & mod_perl).
>
> -Pete
> At 08:42 AM 9/13/00 -0700, Shawn Gordon wrote:
> >Let me take a moment to cloud the issue even further. PHP
> totally rocks,
> >and Bixby ported it to the 3000 one sunny saturday afternoon
> about 6 or so
> >months ago. It works with apache, runs almost everywhere
> and has great
> >database connectivity built into it. While there isn't a plug in for
> >Image, it probably wouldn't be a big deal for someone to
> >write. http://www.php.net/
> >
> >that said, I'm becoming a huge fan of Python these days, and
> my company is
> >even working on some IDE's for visual Python development
> >(multi-platform). While PHP is more tag based like Cold
> Fusion, Python
> >would be a full server side scripting language.
> >
> >At 08:30 AM 9/13/2000, Michael Gueterman wrote:
> > > I'm not sure what you're meaning by "straight man" here,
> > >but I'm simply saying that to state one language is "better"
> > >then another solely by comparing the amount of time it
> > >would take an average coder in either language to accomplish
> > >the same task doesn't give an accurate measure of the worth
> > >of the language as a whole (ok, talk about a 'run-on' sentence :).
> > >I don't consider myself qualified to speak about the pro's
> > >and con's of JSP (yet ;), but I can do so for Cold Fusion. So:
> > >
> > >Pro's:
> > >. Simple. CF is a "tag" based language that is very similar in
> > > appearance to HTML. People that know HTML can quickly
> pick it up
> > > and become proficient in a short amount of time.
> > >. Powerful. The CF tags and functions that make up the language
> > > allow for a wide variety of applications to be developed.
> > >. Extensible. If the base language doesn't offer what you need,
> > > you can use COM/DCOM objects that may already be available
> > > elsewhere, or write your own in C++ or Java. These are called
> > > 'CF Custom Tags' and allow CF to take advantage of the
> functionality
> > > that may have been developed for other application
> server products
> > > (such as ASP). This is how we use CF to perform the gateway
> > > functions between the 'comp.sys.hp.mpe' newsgroup and
> the HP3000-L
> > > listserv. CF has the ability built-in to handle
> SMTP/POP3 email,
> > > but not for NNTP. We purchased a small .dll that handled the
> > > reading/posting/etc functions for NNTP, and
> incorporated it into
> > > the CF template which does the bi-directional transfers. By
> > > doing this, we went from writing the technical specs, writing
> > > code, to implementation in two days. The bulk of that time was
> > > actually spent in the spec and QA stages.
> > >. Scalable. If you need more power than a single box can offer,
> > > you can use the Enterprise version which includes the
> ClusterCats
> > > technology to add additional servers into a cluster
> for horizontal
> > > growth. This allows you to build very large/redundant
> environments
> > > if necessary.
> > >
> > >Cons:
> > >. CF does not natively run on the e3000.
> > >. CF can not (easily) interface with an existing host-based
> > > application. In other words, the existing business logic
> > > that may be present in the host-based application would need
> > > to be replicated into the CF code. For "new" applications,
> > > this is not an issue, but if your going to take an existing
> > > host-based application to the web (existing rules/logic and
> > > all), then this may be a problem.
> > >
> > > I've personally chosen CF as my "web application"
> language of choice,
> > >but there may be times when I would choose something else
> (for example
> > >if the customer already has experience with another
> technology and it
> > >can perform the functions they require, there would have
> to be a very
> > >strong reason to move that particular application to CF instead of
> > >what they already have).
> > >
> > >So, I can't give you a single comparison that you can use to make
> > >a decision as to which technology is best for a given purpose.
> > >CF is but one of many and happens to be what I prefer. Hopefully
> > >this response is a little clearer for you than my previous one. If
> > >not, then let's take this discussion off-line and I can give you
> > >more in-depth information about CF (which wouldn't really be
> > >appropriate for the list).
> > >
> > >Regards,
> > >Michael L Gueterman
> > >Easy Does It Technologies
> > >Allaire Alliance Partner
> > >http://www.editcorp.com
> > >voice: (888) 858-EDIT -or- (573) 368-5478
> > >fax: (573) 368-5479
> > >
> > >
> > >-----Original Message-----
> > >From: Cortlandt Wilson <[log in to unmask]>
> > >To: [log in to unmask]
> > >Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 13:06:12 -0600
> > >Subject: Re: [HP3000-L] Apache vs. Cold Fusion (was
> HPWorld 2000 On
> > >Sunday)
> > >
> > > > "Michael Gueterman" wrote
> > > > > I think trying to compare development times between
> JSP/CF/ASP/etc
> > > > > is silly and not really useful to anyone honestly trying to
> > > > > decide what the appropriate technology is for a particular
> > > > > application.
> > > > (CF = Cold Fusion, JSP = Java Server Pages, ASP =
> Microsoft's web
> > > > server)
> > > >
> > > > Huh?
> > > >
> > > > So you want me to be the straight man? OK, what is
> THE "really
> > > > useful" comparison
> > > >
> > > > - Cortlandt
> > > >
> >
> >
> >
> >Regards,
> >
> >Shawn Gordon
> >President
> >theKompany.com
> >www.thekompany.com
> >949-713-3276
>
|
