Show #129 - Frameworks, Open Source and Validation

ColdFusion , Frameworks , cf.Objective Add comments

In this show Dave and Scott discuss the benefits of using a framework, with particular emphasis on the FW/1 project. They also talk about recent discussions regarding open source software, the jQuery Mobile ThemeRoller, cf.Objective() 2012 and the release of ValidateThis 1.1.

 


Show Link: http://traffic.libsyn.com/cfhour/Show_129_-_Frameworks_Open_Source_and_Validation.mp3

 

Sponsor

 

A little bit about our sponsor. Host Media UK is, among other things, a ColdFusion hosting provider. Click the link below for an exclusive discount for CFHour listeners using the discount code 'cfhour'

Host Media UK
http://www.hostmediauk.com/

 

Show Topic Links:

 

FW/1 Framework
https://github.com/seancorfield/fw1

jQuery Mobile ThemeRoller
http://jquerymobile.com/blog/2011/10/28/announcing-themeroller-for-mobile-beta/

ValidateThis 1.1
http://www.silverwareconsulting.com/index.cfm/2012/1/5/ValidateThis-11--User-Contributed-Fixes-and-Features

cf.Objective() 2012 Speakers
http://www.cfobjective.com/speakers/
cf.Objective() 2012 Sessions
http://www.cfobjective.com/sessions

 

Buy Stuff

 

CFHour Store
http://cfhour.spreadshirt.com/

9 responses to “Show #129 - Frameworks, Open Source and Validation”

  1. Sean Corfield Says:
    [my comments are being rejected as spam so I'm posting them a paragraph at a time to see if I can figure out why...]

    Thanx again guys for the kind words about FW/1. Dave, I see you've joined the FW/1 mailing list so you can benefit from the vibrant open source community support you'll find there (I've removed first post moderation for you).
  2. Sean Corfield Says:
    [next para]

    Glad to hear clarification on your feelings about open source. I think Scott was spot on when he said that misinterpretation is nearly always due to the way something is communicated rather than the way the listener heard it. As for zealots, the CFML community has plenty of those (on both sides) - which is very clear when someone, somewhere posts something negative about CFML and the "fanboi"-types pile in (often with incoherent rants that do nothing to further the image of CFML as a mature technology that deserves to be taken seriously!).
  3. Sean Corfield Says:
    [paragraph omitted - I'll try to reword it]

    I've been very lucky with FW/1 that several community members have helped with the documentation (especially Dutch Rapley who single-handedly wrote the documentation for subsystems after Ryan Cogswell contributed the implementation of subsystems - I can't claim responsibility for any part of subsystems!). Unfortunately, finding developers who can write good documentation is like pulling teeth - I wish more folks who blog about an open source project would contribute their blog posts as documentation to help improve the project...

    And then you get situations like Railo's book where Mark Drew (and some other volunteers from the Railo team) devoted a huge amount of unpaid time to writing the book for Packt, only to have some loser put the PDF up on a torrent site. That sort of thing makes authors wonder why they bother (technical authors get a pittance in royalties from most books, compared to the hours of unpaid time over many months that it takes to create the work).

    On cf.Objective(), thanks for noticing the number of new speakers - that's been a policy of the CAB for several years. We (well, "they" now that I'm no longer part of the CAB) like to highlight new speakers so that we don't have the same old speakers (often trotting out the same old talks) - a criticism that was leveled at CFUnited several times!
  4. Sean Corfield Says:
    [OK, here's the paragraph your spam trap didn't like... I'll keep rewording it until it is accepted]

    As for documentation, the reason is that proprietary software companies pay writers to create documentation - they don't expect their developers to write end user documentation. Open source projects nearly always rely on volunteers with the right skills to help contribute to documentation.
  5. Sean Corfield Says:
    Apparently "s p e c i a l i s t s" is a bad word. Or saying that they are paid is bad. Anyways, hope my comments all make sense now!
  6. Dave Ferguson Says:
    Sean...

    Thanks for taking the time to post the comment. Most would have given up at the spam rejection so thanks for that. Also, thanks for boosting the comment count for the show ;).

    Right now I am just getting my feet wet with FW/1. I joined the mailing list so I can at least learn from other discussions. I do hope to participate when I can.

    I do find FW/1 very easy to use, learn, and understand. Like Scott said on the show, it allows me to code without getting in the way. I have found that my productivity overall has greatly increased. This probably due to the fact that I don't need to worry about the mundane details on every request.

    --Dave
  7. Scott Stroz Says:
    Sean - I did not intend for it to sound like I was berating developers for lack of documentation - if it sounded that way, I apologize. I know writing documentation is difficult. I know that most developers are not good at writing documentation - especially the developer who worked on the project :D.

    Honestly, if there is a decent community around the project and/or an active suport forum or mailing list, it is usually more helpful than even the most verbos documentation.

    Oh - and I echo Dave's sentiment. Thanx for being tenacious enough to get your comments through and for listening to the entire show :D
  8. Sean Corfield Says:
    I didn't think you were berating developers about documentation. I've complained loudly about Apache ActiveMQ have crappy documentation in the past. Even today, the Getting Started documentation is a single page and links to FuseSource's message broker documentation (except it links to fuseosurce which is a parked "for sale" page!). So it's still got crappy documentation - and it's a widely used project...

    Good documentation is pretty rare in the open source world (for the reasons I mentioned) but there are usually good books available - where a publisher has paid editors to help the author (usually a developer) get something readable in print, and where a team of reviewers have helped shape the work too (and they get a free book for their time so they're compensated too). In other words: commercial products usually have good (free) documentation; free open source projects sometimes have good (non-free) books if they're popular enough. Some really popular projects have many books.

    But you're right about the community (mailing list etc). A lot of open source projects also use IRC as their "immediate" support and most of the freenode channels for languages have 300+ developers online 24x7 to help with technical problems. I wish more CFML developers would use IRC - and use it for technical questions & answers (rather than a handful of people sharing craigslist and other silly links / pictures)...
  9. Sarah Kelly Says:
    I'm *pretty sure* I was looking at some code today that did NOT use a framework...unless maybe spaghetti with some linguini, rotini, and alphabet pasta thrown in counts;)

    Not really disagreeing with your statement...just sayin...

Leave a Reply

Leave this field empty:

Powered by Mango Blog. Design and Icons by N.Design Studio