I am looking into some ColdFusion development with the Fusebox framework - I have installed CF10 and downloaded Fusebox 5.5 and their sample skeleton app, but I am left wanting at their setup guide.
I can get a basic app (Hello World style) working by just dropping a directory in my webroot and a basic index.cfm, but when I try to access the skeleton app I get an error saying the Fusebox files cant be found.
Can someone describe common convention/best practice for structuring my applications and FuseBox files in my web server?
I currently have the following structure:
+ wwwroot
+skeletonapplication (the skeleton application)
+FBCore (Fusebox core files)
Also, the docs mention that I need to add a line to index.cfm to confirm the directory structure - can anyone shed any more light on this as to what the config line looks like?
And finally, if anyone can chip in on general directory structure best practice for individual applications that would be great.. Im hoping they share something in common with the typical kind of layout as used by Initialize etc
The Fusebox core files should be in the webroot in a folder named /fusebox5 by default. Alternatively (and probably the recommended deployment) is to locate them outside of the webroot and create a mapping in your Application.cfc or ColdFusion Admin called fusebox5 to the directory.
From there in the skeleton, it clearly shows the proper structure of a Fusebox 5 application. There are two implementations for Fusebox Applications and they can be mixed and matched to a degree as well: Implicit and XML (Explicit).
+wwwroot
+myApp
+controller
+model
+view
+layouts
+fusebox5
You can customize where the fusebox core files are located by adjusting the line in the application.cfc:
<cfcomponent extends="fusebox5.Application" output="false">
Let's say you move the core files into the FBCore directory in webroot:
<cfcomponent extends="FBCore.Application" output="false">
Looking at the latest download from Fusebox.org, it isn't very new-developer friendly out of the box. Try downloading the sample Bookstore application for version 5 and version 4 (if you want to see the xml at work). The framework stagnated for a number of years but there is a new group working on the framework but I'm not sure where that group stands right now.
Sean Corfield, one of Fusebox's core maintainers in the past has wrote recently he felt that his FW/1 framework is a successor to Fusebox. Fusebox is touted as a "feature-complete" framework, meaning all the big features planned for it were completed, and I think FW/1 is also in a similar state.
The most actively maintained framework is Coldbox. It too supported both xml and now implicit (no-xml) flavors and the group behind it releases a large number of products and features on an almost too-regular basis (it's hard to keep up!). It does come with ALOT of documentation but the framework does everything under the sun. They have released a Lite version that might make it easier for newer developers to jump in.
Related
I'm basically a Core PHP Programmer and recently I've been given the task to get a grasp on Joomla.However I'm confused with the inner workings of Joomla.One of my project leader told me that if you master that module positioning stuff then that's it ...Hoping for ur quick replies..
Joomla is not only about module positioning, it is more than that so as par as learning is concerned following few tips for you-
Learn MVC architectural design pattern.
Search for Modules, components and plugins, how they work and the differences.
How to use JOOMLA framework.
how to query database in JOOMLA.
Look for the version differences(1.5,1.6,1.7,2.5).
Security concerns in an application.
Good place to start - Joomla Docs
Have a look at the JOOMLA architecture -
Source - Image Source Link
I am cleaning up a build system for a product that uses Jetty. Currently the project has
javax.servlet.jsp:jsp-api:2.1
as a dependency. Given that I am using Jetty for my project I suspect using
org.mortbay.jetty:jsp-api-2.1:6.1.5
would be the better option. Am I right/wrong? Can they be used interchangeably? Does jsp-api-2.1 leverage a different implementation? Or is it simply a repackage if jsp-api to assert compatibility with Jetty?
I've been trying to find information about this on the web, so far nothing has come up.
Update: Seems like org.mortbay.jetty:servlet-api-2.5:6.1.5 and javax.servlet.jsp:servlet-api:2.1 have the same relationship.
Jetty has a long and colorful history with jsp, having no jsp implementation of our own we have leveraged other implementations often, judging by the version numbers your looking at those are very old versions where we were maintaining patches on top of the glassfish jsp implementation. I think it was a patch for supporting logging in jetty and then a bug fix or three.
Now a days we have been using the jsp artifacts from the java.net project which was spun out from glassfish a while back. However that doesn't seem to be tracking bug fixes very regularly either so we are kicking around trying the jasper implementation in tomcat.
Back on your question, the jsp-api artifacts are typically just repackaged artifacts since the api doesn't change frequently. We historically rebundled them to keep them paired with the patched implementation.
Now, you are obviously using a jetty-6 setup since your still using org.mortbay packaging but jetty6 and jetty7 are both servlet-api 2.5 so you might be able to get away with using the jetty7 jsp setup, we have a handy pom that declares these artifacts here:
http://central.maven.org/maven2/org/eclipse/jetty/jetty-jsp/7.6.5.v20120716/jetty-jsp-7.6.5.v20120716.pom
These are glassfish bundles as well, repackaged and made into osgi bundles in the process so they can be used with jetty in osgi environments....they ought to work normally though, we package them in our jetty7 distributions.
I've searched a bid for tutorials on creating resource bundle files for Coldfusion (or internationalization). I'm finding stuff for Coldbox and Mura quite easily. I've also found tutorials for Java, but I wonder how they apply in this situation.
However, I'm using Fusebox 3 and Coldfusion 8. I'm not convinced that these would be easily applicable in this situation.
What would be the most basic way to use resource files for language purposes?
You can use the JavaRB CFC along with I18NUtil. JavaRB can be used to load pure java resource bundles and I18NUtil contains lots of number/currency/other functions. We've used them successfully for many years.
You can load the resources into the APPLICATION scope which makes key retrieval extremely quick. You just need a way to reload them once you add/updated the resource files.
Let me first say I am aware of this faq for Mach-II, which discusses using application specific mappings as a third option when:
locating the framework in the server root is not possible and
creating a server wide mapping to the Mach-II framework directory is impossible
Using application specific mappings would also work for other ColdFusion frameworks with similar requirements (ColdSpring). Here is my issue however: my (I should say "their") production servers are all running ColdFusion MX7, and application specific mappings were introduced in ColdFusion 8. I most likely will be unable to do option 1 or 2 because they involve creating server wide changes that could conflict with other applications (I don't have a final word on this but I am preparing for that to be the case).
That said, is there anybody out there who was in similar bind and has done an option 4, in any ColdFusion version, or with any similar framework? The only option 4 I can think of is modifying the entire framework to change this hardcoded path, and even if that worked it would be time consuming and risky. I'm fairly sure that if there was a simple modification or other simple solution it would already be included in the framework (maybe it's included in version 1.8 of Mach-II and I don't know about it yet).
Any thoughts on solving this problem or even unorthodox setups with libraries that have specific path requirements would be appreciated. Any thoughts from Team Mach-II would especially appreciated...we're on the same team here Matt! ;-)
EDIT
Apparently, the ColdBox framework includes a refactor.xml ANT task which includes a target that refactors the ColdBox code to use a different absolute path as a base along with several other useful refactoring targets. So problem solved for ColdBox users.
Looking at the build.xml for Mach-II (1.6 and 1.8) I don't see any target in there that would allow me to refactor the code. I thought about creating a feature request ticket for such a task for Mach-II but frankly I don't think creating such an ANT task is a big priority for the MachII team since the need really only relates to either
a) users of ColdFusion versions below 8
b) someone who wants to use multiple Mach-II versions in the same application, a use I doubt they want to support
The ColdSpring code I have doesn't come with any ANT tasks at all, although I do have unit tests, and I bet if I poked around the SVN I'd find a few build scripts.
Using Ant tasks to refactor and retest the code, or the simpler (and sort of cop out) solution of creating a separate ColdFusion instance for the application are the best answers I've been able to come up with. I don't need this application to exist in the shared scope of other applications, so my first solution is going to be to try and get a dedicated CF instance for this application.
I'm also going to look at the ColdBox refactor.xml ANT task however and see if I can modify it to work generically to recognize and refactor CFC references with modified absolute paths. If I complete this task I'll be sure to post the code somewhere and edit create an answer to link to it. If anybody else wants to take a crack at that or help me out with it feel free.
Until then I'll leave this question open and see if someone comes up with a better solution.
Fusebox is not so strict, I think.
In XML mode (maybe I call this not 100% correcly, just mean using the Application.cfm) it's just proper include in index.cfm, something like:
<cfinclude template="fusebox5/fusebox5.cfm" />
In non-XML mode it will need proper extending in the root Application.cfc:
<cfcomponent extends="path.to.fusebox5.Application" output="false">
All you need is to know the path.
Perhaps you could create a symbolic link and let the operating system resolve the issue for you?
I've been playing with FW/1 lately, and while it may look like you need to add a mapping and extend org.corfield.framework, you can actually move the framework.cfc file into your web root and just extend="framework". It's dead simple, and gets you straight into a great framework with no mess and very little overhead.
It should be as simple as dropping the 'MachII' folder at the root of your domain (i.e. example.com/MachII). No mappings are required to use Mach-II if you just deploy at the root of the domain of your website.
Also:
Please file a ticket for the ANT task you mentioned in your question. Team Mach-II would love to have this issue logged:
Enter a new ticket on the Mach-II Trac
If you want to tackle an ANT task for us, we can get stuff like this incorporated into the builds faster than waiting to for a Team member to work on the ticket. Code submissions from the community are welcome and appreciated.
We don't keep an eye on Stack Overflow very often so we invite you to join our official community group at called "Mach-II for ColdFusion" at Google Groups. The Google Group is the best place to ask questions or comments like this if you want feedback from the Team.
Google does not really deliver much content (or my query sucks). Has anyone made the switch and can share the experience?
We found that when we upgraded to CF 8:
Carraige returns are stripped in plain text emails. We found we had to be explicit about line feed characters by creating a var like so <cfset CRLF = "#Chr(13)##Chr(10)#"> and inserting it in the plain text email where we needed the line feed. We eventually went to HTML emails.
Third party jar files caused problems due to the order in which jar files are loaded. Certain jar files must appear first in the java classpath as defined in cfroot/runtime/bin/jvm.config. This was a messy workaround and we have discontinued using that jar.
Also make sure to patch immediately to 8.0.1. We had a performance nightmare becuase of this issue.
Best of luck!
I haven't had any CFMX 6.1 apps to switch across, but Railo is definitely my CFML engine of choice.
Compatibility-wise, there is very unlikely to be any significant issues migrating from CFMX 6.1, and you can easily test this with the Express version - no installation required!
Railo can be stricter about certain aspects of CFML, so you might get a few errors if you exploit bugs/weaknesses with CF, but nothing really to worry about.
And, if you do get stuck on anything, the Railo mailing list is active with plenty of friendly helpful people who can help to get you going again.
We made the switch about a year ago and if you are talking about only on the code side, then the change from cf6 to cf8 shouldn't require any changes as long as your setup remains the same. One change is the way that CF handles verity collections, so if you make use of cfsearch then it might be something you look into. There are a number of improvements from cf6 that you should look to implement. The few that we have found especially helpful are cfdocument, cfimage, cfpdf, and cffeed. Here is a good link with other key points... http://www.adobe.com/products/coldfusion/upgrade/
If you are upgrading from CFMX 6.1 to Railo 3.1 almost no problems should occur. There are some things that we do not support (like CFREPORT or C++ CFX tags). Besides that it should be very easy to migrate existing CFMX 6.1 code over to Railo. By default Railo is configured to be as compatible as possible with CFMX.
There are some other things you might watch out for:
If you create a struct like this in CF: <cfset a["image.x"]> you will be able to call that variable by using the "." notation, although it's misleading. So in CF you could do <cfoutput>#a.image.x#</cfoutput> whereas in Railo you would have to write: <cfoutput>#a["image.x"]#</cfoutput>
Inside functions creating variables in the local scope that are named like scopes will work in CFMX but not in Railo. So this: <cfset var url = "whatever"> will work in CF but not in Railo.
In Railo you cannot use the application scope or the session scope before it was initialized with cfapplication. Well in CF you couldn't either but there CF will create a local variable in the variables scope called "application" or "session". This sometimes leads to confusion.
Besides these things, it should go flawlessly. If you have of course any problems, just contact our Railo Google group or us directly at www.getrailo.com
Gert Franz
Railo Professional Open Source
I'm not aware of any depreciated tags or functions from CF6.1 to CF8. CF8 has been optimized for performance so you will most likely see an improvement in your application depending on what was used.
I successfully upgraded a large application from CF4.5 to CF8 with no problems. If the application consists of pretty straight forward use of ColdFusion tags and functions, you shouldn't have much problem.
However, since the developer version is free to use, you should really setup a test environment and determine the answer to this question yourself by testing your application. All datasources, custom tags, etc will have to be migrated and tested. If any CF6.1 applications used any of the lower level java api available in some things, you may need to test that thoroughly to make sure the underlying implementation of the coldfusion hasn't changed and fix what's necessary.
As for Railo3.1, there may be some tags or functions not implemented yet. You will again need to setup a test environment and determine this yourself. Somewhere on the Railo site there should be a list of compatibilities between the difference versions of CF and Railo.