Comments on: Extensibility does not replace the need for new functionality http://chafic.com/2004/02/02/extensibility-does-not-replace-the-need-for-new-functionality/ Technical discussion of Flex, Flash, and RIA development Thu, 29 Jul 2010 17:34:20 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7.1 hourly 1 By: Abi http://chafic.com/2004/02/02/extensibility-does-not-replace-the-need-for-new-functionality/comment-page-1/#comment-48305 Abi Sat, 03 Feb 2007 12:22:54 +0000 http://rewindlife.com/?p=134#comment-48305 Awesome, man Awesome, man

]]> By: Caiek http://chafic.com/2004/02/02/extensibility-does-not-replace-the-need-for-new-functionality/comment-page-1/#comment-48301 Caiek Sat, 03 Feb 2007 12:17:30 +0000 http://rewindlife.com/?p=134#comment-48301 So much spam ( So much spam (

]]> By: Max Power http://chafic.com/2004/02/02/extensibility-does-not-replace-the-need-for-new-functionality/comment-page-1/#comment-493 Max Power Fri, 03 Dec 2004 11:20:24 +0000 http://rewindlife.com/?p=134#comment-493 Welcome Home Everyone Home Cya Max Welcome Home Everyone Home

Cya
Max

]]> By: jill jones http://chafic.com/2004/02/02/extensibility-does-not-replace-the-need-for-new-functionality/comment-page-1/#comment-492 jill jones Mon, 22 Nov 2004 03:49:27 +0000 http://rewindlife.com/?p=134#comment-492 Nice siteGod knows Bye! Jill Jones Nice siteGod knows

Bye!
Jill Jones

]]> By: debt management service uk http://chafic.com/2004/02/02/extensibility-does-not-replace-the-need-for-new-functionality/comment-page-1/#comment-491 debt management service uk Wed, 03 Nov 2004 01:10:11 +0000 http://rewindlife.com/?p=134#comment-491 Hello there, Iwas browsing the web and found this blog. Some interesting quotes. Keep them coming! Alice debt management service uk Hello there,

Iwas browsing the web and found this blog. Some interesting quotes. Keep them coming!

Alice
debt management service uk

]]> By: ike http://chafic.com/2004/02/02/extensibility-does-not-replace-the-need-for-new-functionality/comment-page-1/#comment-490 ike Tue, 03 Feb 2004 02:54:12 +0000 http://rewindlife.com/?p=134#comment-490 That's the second reference to "Blackstone" I've seen in the past 2 days, and I have to admit my ignorance. :) Though the description does bear a striking resemblance to my experiences with the onTap framework. When I have time I frequently add new features of one kind or another on a daily basis. Most of them not significant enough changes to the core architecture to announce even a new minor version, so I just increment the build number. That’s the second reference to “Blackstone” I’ve seen in the past 2 days, and I have to admit my ignorance. :) Though the description does bear a striking resemblance to my experiences with the onTap framework. When I have time I frequently add new features of one kind or another on a daily basis. Most of them not significant enough changes to the core architecture to announce even a new minor version, so I just increment the build number.

]]> By: Sam http://chafic.com/2004/02/02/extensibility-does-not-replace-the-need-for-new-functionality/comment-page-1/#comment-489 Sam Tue, 03 Feb 2004 02:44:45 +0000 http://rewindlife.com/?p=134#comment-489 One thing I've found when working on commerical products is that it often is nice to spend a whole day on small low-priority items. The result is you can get a lot of mentionable items done even if it wasn't really all that much work. I see adding native CF functions that wrap J2SE/J2EE functionality in the same boat. Blackstone can come out with lots of new functions and native support for different technologies without it really taking a lot of development time. It does add to QA and support, so there is still a trade-off. One thing I’ve found when working on commerical products is that it often is nice to spend a whole day on small low-priority items. The result is you can get a lot of mentionable items done even if it wasn’t really all that much work. I see adding native CF functions that wrap J2SE/J2EE functionality in the same boat.

Blackstone can come out with lots of new functions and native support for different technologies without it really taking a lot of development time.

It does add to QA and support, so there is still a trade-off.

]]> By: ike http://chafic.com/2004/02/02/extensibility-does-not-replace-the-need-for-new-functionality/comment-page-1/#comment-488 ike Tue, 03 Feb 2004 02:39:13 +0000 http://rewindlife.com/?p=134#comment-488 As an asside, related to availability there's also the advantage of consistency in development, which can be a big help to those of us who do a lot of consulting work. Since core functionality is more frequently adopted, it reduces the need for us to learn and/or catalog multiple third-party tools for the same purpose. The fact that there have been a couple different wrapper tags for cfmail springs to mind (although it also demonstrates that the native features aren't always a cure). I wrote one myself that degrades gracefully between CF5 and CFMX. DHTML menus also springs to mind, although I'm not convinced I want to see MM working on that. :P As an asside, related to availability there’s also the advantage of consistency in development, which can be a big help to those of us who do a lot of consulting work. Since core functionality is more frequently adopted, it reduces the need for us to learn and/or catalog multiple third-party tools for the same purpose. The fact that there have been a couple different wrapper tags for cfmail springs to mind (although it also demonstrates that the native features aren’t always a cure). I wrote one myself that degrades gracefully between CF5 and CFMX. DHTML menus also springs to mind, although I’m not convinced I want to see MM working on that. :P

]]> By: ike http://chafic.com/2004/02/02/extensibility-does-not-replace-the-need-for-new-functionality/comment-page-1/#comment-487 ike Tue, 03 Feb 2004 02:27:18 +0000 http://rewindlife.com/?p=134#comment-487 Oh I don't disagree (nice article by the way). I was merely thinking that given Macromedia having limited resources, if I had to priorotize my desires for new core functionality in the server, I'd rather see them implement features that I can't readily implement myself first, and worry about things like zip later (and JavaScript MUCH later). Plus it's nice to know how far we can push that extensibility envelope, like this recent entry: <a href="http://www.turnkey.to/ontap/blog/?20040124" rel="nofollow">http://www.turnkey.to/ontap/blog/?20040124</a> Beyond the wrapper tag for cfstoredproc I frequently create wrappers or replacements for native tags and functions to either add features or produce a consistent method of resolving issues I've had with some of the native features. Oh I don’t disagree (nice article by the way). I was merely thinking that given Macromedia having limited resources, if I had to priorotize my desires for new core functionality in the server, I’d rather see them implement features that I can’t readily implement myself first, and worry about things like zip later (and JavaScript MUCH later). Plus it’s nice to know how far we can push that extensibility envelope, like this recent entry: http://www.turnkey.to/ontap/blog/?20040124 Beyond the wrapper tag for cfstoredproc I frequently create wrappers or replacements for native tags and functions to either add features or produce a consistent method of resolving issues I’ve had with some of the native features.

]]>