Ext

[ToBeNamedLater]

What is the "Adobe recommended" way of including the CF-supplied ExtJS library if I'm not using ExtJS based controls on a page?

Is it
<script type="text/javascript" src="/CFIDE/scripts/ajax/ext/adapter/yui/yui-utilities.js"></script>
<script type="text/javascript" src="/CFIDE/scripts/ajax/ext/adapter/yui/ext-yui-adapter.js"></script>
<script type="text/javascript" src="/CFIDE/scripts/ajax/ext/ext-all.js"></script>

Or is there some other more flexible way that won't bite me on the next release?

I don't want to
<cfajaximport tags="whatever">
because that includes 500k of stuff, depending on the tag, and all I want is the base stuff.

I can't believe I'm having so much trouble getting this question answered.

[ToBeNamedLater]

Surely *someone* must know the answer to this. I can't be the only one using it.

Anyone? Anyone?

[CutterBl]

Personally, I would not use the 1.1.1 version included with the server, but download the 2.0 code that's available now on the ExtJS site. Yes, it's in beta, but it's very stable.

[ToBeNamedLater]

The question remains unanswered.

quote:

---

What is the "Adobe recommended" way of including the CF-supplied ExtJS library if I'm not using CF ExtJS based controls on a page?

---

The rest is interesting and all that, but it's not what relevant here.

Relevance aside:
Can I drop-in replace the supplied version if ExtJS with 2.0? It seems not. There look to be significant class and API changes. Is Adobe going to supply a patch to take care of the 2.0 library? When or why not?

I need this stuff to work out of the box. I spent a squillion dollars for CF and the last thing I want to do is spend my time trying to get it to work. I've got real applications to work on. These features are one of the main reasons I upgraded all of our licenses.

[Newsgroup_User]

In article <ffqu24$3rt$1@forums.macromedia.com>
"ToBeNamedLater"<webforumsuser@macromedia.com> wrote:
> What is the "Adobe recommended" way of including the CF-supplied
> ExtJS library if I'm not using ExtJS based controls on a page?

Using <cfajaximport/>. Remember that the you only take the hit once
because the JS will be cached after that first hit.

--
Sean A Corfield -- (904) 302-SEAN
An Architect's View -- http://corfield.org/

"Perfection is the enemy of the good."
-- Gustave Flaubert, French realist novelist (1821-1880)

[ToBeNamedLater]

I've tried that. It doesn't seem to work.

The CF controls include ExtJS files in a specific order (because it's required by Ext). If I include what I need to, out of order from what CF has included (since CF gets its dibs in first), it causes problem. The only work-around I've found is to always include "ext-all.js" because I'm never sure what's been included and what hasn't. Every other solution ends in error.

[Newsgroup_User]

In article <fgif0l$1l8$1@forums.macromedia.com>
"ToBeNamedLater"<webforumsuser@macromedia.com> wrote:
> I've tried that. It doesn't seem to work.

> The CF controls include ExtJS files in a specific order (because
> it's required by Ext). If I include what I need to, out of order from
> what CF has included (since CF gets its dibs in first), it causes
> problem. The only work-around I've found is to always include
> "ext-all.js" because I'm never sure what's been included and what
> hasn't. Every other solution ends in error.

Right, you can't include them yourself as well as letting CF include
them. Either use just <cfajaximport/> or, as you've found, include
ext-all.js yourself.

--
Sean A Corfield -- (904) 302-SEAN
An Architect's View -- http://corfield.org/

"Perfection is the enemy of the good."
-- Gustave Flaubert, French realist novelist (1821-1880)

[ToBeNamedLater]

Thanks. That's what I need to know. It's not the answer I wanted, but it's an answer.

I'm finding that <cfajaximport tags="cflayout-border"> might get me everything I need (plus a whole lot more, but not so much as ext-all). My concern is that it might change in a point release, and all fo the sudden, all pages fail because Adobe decided to either change packages or change the way they've implemented it and not tell anyone. They've done this several times in the past and I have no faith that they won't do it again.

So on the one hand, I don't want to slow my pages down by going outside the CF framework any more than is absolutely unavoidable, and on the other hand, if I do use the framework I run the risk of them changing the product in a way that breaks everything in the next release. Once bitten, twice shy, in other words.

Up to now, I've used several third party packages (cfajax, prototype, script.aculo.us, tiny MCE) that I'm in the process of replacing with the now built-in functions. I really don't want to put so much work into this streamlining effort if I'm going to be knifed in the back.

I guess what there really needs to be is a cfajaximport type tag that will include the native ExtJS files that I specify. Sadly, that doesn't seem to exist.

[Newsgroup_User]

In article <fgitb0$ij7$1@forums.macromedia.com>
"ToBeNamedLater"<webforumsuser@macromedia.com> wrote:
> They've done this several times in the past and I have no
> faith that they won't do it again.

Well, the AJAX stuff is new in CF8 so they haven't "done this" to you
with the AJAX stuff.
> replacing with the now built-in functions. I really don't want to
> put so much work into this streamlining effort if I'm going to be
> knifed in the back.

I think you're being overly dramatic 🙂 Changing what goes in one tag
at some future date should Adobe change things is not exactly a huge
amount of work. It's not like Adobe would do this specifically to
break your programs. Changes are made for good reasons and go through
extensive testing, both internally and via private alpha/beta and more
recently via public beta programs as well.
> I guess what there really needs to be is a cfajaximport type
> tag that will include the native ExtJS files that I specify. Sadly,
> that doesn't seem to exist.

It sounds like a good enhancement - you should submit it via
< http://adobe.com/go/wish> so that everyone can benefit.

--
Sean A Corfield -- (904) 302-SEAN
An Architect's View -- http://corfield.org/

"Perfection is the enemy of the good."
-- Gustave Flaubert, French realist novelist (1821-1880)

[ToBeNamedLater]

To be fair, it wasn't Adobe that did it, it was Macromedia. But we were burned very badly when they removed the TXT/CSV ODBC drivers from the product without telling anyone ahead of time. We installed the upgrade and poof, they were gone. (IIRC, it was version 5 to 6). No notice, no nothing. Nothing in the release notes, nothing in the upgrade information: nothing. We had a whole subsystem that used that for analyzing log files. It cost us 10s of thousands to rewrite it. I can't afford to have that happen again. MM's response? "Yeah, we removed it. You'll have to find something else."

And what's a "huge amount of work" depends on how you measure it. In one application, even a large one, maybe not. But I've got 15 separate applications, all supporting different departments, supplying different functions for different reasons, from tiny ones to very, very large ones, four of which are direct revenue producers (i.e. collect money), and another three which are mission critical. And one developer: me. If they all die at once because of an upgrade, it's a bit more than "a huge amount of work". And that's just at one client. That doesn't include stuff I've written for other clients and have released into the wild, so to speak. If they were to come back to me at the same time with broken systems after they'd upgraded (regardless of whether they told me or not), I'd not be able to handle it. Again, I was bitten very, very badly before, remember.

I pay the high price of Macromedia/Adobe products because I expect them to work. If I wanted a slapdash platform with a minimum of framework that I had time to futz with, I'd pick something else: something a lot less expensive. But I don't have time to develop the platform. That's what I pay Adobe for. I have applications to write and a business to support. I don't write platforms and systems, I buy them and integrate them and create solutions governed by business rules. I don't object to changing things with major releases, I expect it. But it needs to be documented so that I can go into it informed. I've not always gotten that, and when I don't, it's extremely expensive and causes great hardship for both me and my clients. I know that Adobe has, with a straight face, said "cost is not a factor for our customers" which, frankly, belies belief. Still, they said it and more than once. It doesn't make me very comfortable based on my past experience.

[Newsgroup_User]

In article <fgjeme$9e5$1@forums.macromedia.com>
"ToBeNamedLater"<webforumsuser@macromedia.com> wrote:
> To be fair, it wasn't Adobe that did it, it was Macromedia. But we
> were burned very badly when they removed the TXT/CSV ODBC drivers
> from the product without telling anyone ahead of time. We installed
> the upgrade and poof, they were gone. (IIRC, it was version 5 to 6).

The change from CF5 to CFMX (6.0) was a big change and a number of
changes were forced on Macromedia by the switch from native C/C++
database drivers to the Java-based JDBC drivers. That was a complete
ground-up rewrite of the CFML engine. There have been no changes on
that scale since (and that was five years ago).

Of course, no one should upgrade a working production server to any
new release of software until they've fully tested it on another
server. I think quite a few people stayed on CF5 (or even earlier
versions) because CFMX was too much of a change for them and their
existing systems.
> It doesn't make me very comfortable based on my past experience.

Did you have any other specific problems with upgrades? Or is all this
based on one upgrade five years ago?

--
Sean A Corfield -- (904) 302-SEAN
An Architect's View -- http://corfield.org/

"If you're not annoying somebody, you're not really alive."
-- Margaret Atwood

[ToBeNamedLater]

Whether to upgrade or not is not my choice. I can recommend to do a thing or not do a thing, but the ultimate decision is taken by the client, not me. I am, however, the one who gets to clean up the mess.

Not everyone has the finances and staff to run multiple copies of applications on multiple servers for lengths of time to make sure that something works after an upgrade. The evaluation copies only last 30 days, and with the staff available to the client in question, that's simply not long enough. They paid dearly for it. And it could have been avoided entirely if there had been one single mention anywhere in any release note. "A complete rewrite" is not sufficient. "A complete rewrite" implies that all the functionality remains.

Another client was bitten in the same way. They sell a turnkey system (for which I wrote substantial portions) that runs on CF for which their customer must purchase the license. There's no "upgrade" in that case, it's a new install. Same issue.

Since then, I've had only minor issues with upgrades, mostly to do with poor installation implementation (precious little information about what to do or where to look when the install does not go right). Then again, I don't normally do the installs, but I am counted on for advice. My own installations have gone reasonably well.

But I have to repeat that what you call "one upgrade five years ago" was so catastrophic that it will never be forgotten. And it all could have been avoided with proper and complete information on MM's part.