Women in Technology

Article:		ColdFusion MX on Mac OS X, Part 1
Subject:		WebObjects vs CF
Date:		2002-06-25 14:00:37
From:		johnkornet
Response to: WebObjects if you want more OO
I am an experienced CF programmer (all on BBEdit, thank you very much) eager to learn WebObjects as well. I have had plenty of java/oo exposure, so I'm not as much worried about the learning curve. But what about performance? My gut has always been that WebObjects scales much better than CF. Then again, I still use CF 4.5, so it surely has gotten faster (what is MX? Version 6?). Anyway, this article is a dream come true. I also seek the laptop-development holy grail. Before OSX, it was not possible to even use VPC unless you could get two network interfaces into your laptop, attached to each other. But now with OSX you can host more than one IP under the OS, so you should be able to develop off a server running under NT under VPC on the same iBook. Eek. Clearly this article will describe the Better Way.

Showing messages 1 through 2 of 2.

• WebObjects vs CF
  2002-06-28 05:51:12  Rob Brooks-Bilson | [View]
  
  
  As to the scalability of ColdFusion MX, now that it's tied to the J2EE architecture, scalability is a feature of the underlying engine. J2EE's excellent ability to scale means ColdFusion MX's ability to scale is much greater than in previous versions when it was built on a C++ engine.
  
  The great thing about running ColdFusion MX on OSX is that it opens up the world of ColdFusion development to the legions of Mac developers out there. While I wouldn't advocate running a production site with the CF MX/OSX combo (it just isn't tuned for that - yet), it makes for a great development environment for ColdFusion MX applications.
  
  
  Rob Brooks-Bilson
  Author, Programming ColdFusion

• WebObjects vs CF
  2002-06-25 16:02:56  dicklacara [View]
  
  
  I too, use BBEdit (you're welcome)!
  
  CFMX is "Neo" is CF Version 6. The MX signifies a family of products DreamWeaver MX, Flash MX, ColdFusion MX which have been redesigned to work together with better interfaces.
  
  As to performance, during beta, there were a few performance issues, but these were because of all the debugging code included within CF. The released version of CFMX is touted to perform at least as well as CF 5. Much of this is probably due to:
  
  The efficiency of the JRun Application Server
  
  Pre-Compiling CF Tags and Functions into classes
  
  Compiling CFMX templates into Java classes and caching them
  
  The efficiency of the Java JIT compiler
  
  So, we have a procedure-oriented language and its applications, implemented in an object-oriented language.
  
  Actually, the whole thing should scale pretty well.
  
  IBM apparently thinks so, as they announced an agreement with MM to provide CFMX on WebSphere.
  
  <http://www.macromedia.com/macromedia/proom/pr/2002/mx_ibm.html>
  
  I am not familiar enough with WebObjects to know if the potential exists for a similar combination of WebObjects with CFMX.
  
  Dick