Jan 15 2006

Model-Glue 2.0: "Unity"

Posted by Joe Rinehart at 8:56 PM
14 comments
- Categories: ColdFusion MX | Model-Glue | Causing Trouble

Yes, Model-Glue is moving forward. No, it's not the all-encomposing <cf_writeMyApplicationForMe> tag you've been waiting for, but it's damn close.

Yes, there is going to be Model-Glue life after 1.1.

Yes, Unity will change how you do ColdFusion. It will reach the unconverted, CF 5.0 massses. And they will Grok it, because it will be easy.

Yes, Unity will show the JSP developers that RoR-like productivity and Java-like control can be achieved with a simple, tag-based language many have discarded as being "rudimentary," while retaining the full power of Java.

Yes, Unity will show, with a single streaming video demo, how it can change the ColdFusion landscape.

Yes, Unity can show that you can be a cool Web 2.0 developer without learning Ruby.

Yes, Unity follows the same KISS (Keep it Simple, Stupid!) mantra that's always guided Model-Glue. (At least since Joe got his head out of his...well, you know, and stopped adding methods to core.Controller. God, what a bad idea that was. Caching? What was he thinking?).

Yes, Unity's design document is done, and we've found one (1!!!) new tag for ModelGlue.xml that will change your life.

Yes, Unity is a beautiful example of how Object Oriented programming and interfaces can make programming an art, not a struggle.

Yes, Unity will let you make the ASP.NET folks look stupid.

No: We (and that's "we," dammit, not just Joe!) won't say anything more until we're ready, except this:

  1. It's going to be fun.
  2. Headstart is the beginning, not the end, of what ColdFusion and Model-Glue can do. For you.
  3. You're going to have to wait a bit. Maybe as far as CFUnited 2006.

Adobe, take note:

We're going to make CF the most productive *beep*damn language known to mankind. Thanks for being smart enough to buy it, and proving Joe's old boss wrong for switching to .NET.

(Ok, so that's a bit emphatic, but Joe owns stock in Adobe.)

Comments

Chris Scott

Chris Scott wrote on 01/15/06 9:56 PM

Wait, does this mean we like interfaces again now?
Dave Carabetta

Dave Carabetta wrote on 01/15/06 10:33 PM

As if I wasn't psyched enough about the 1.1 release, Unity's already got me thinking! I'm definitely looking forward to any roadmap for the project.
Mark Mazelin

Mark Mazelin wrote on 01/15/06 10:48 PM

Go Joe! I am so looking forward to 1.1 (and larger concrete examples!) and now am salivating for the big two-dot-oh. Thanks for your tireless devotion to ColdFusion.
Sami Hoda

Sami Hoda wrote on 01/15/06 10:59 PM

Joe,

As a long-time Mach II user, you've got me drooling with this post! God I love CF!

-Sami
Joe Rinehart

Joe Rinehart wrote on 01/16/06 6:57 AM

Thanks guys!

Too funny, Chris....wiseass :)
Doug Hughes

Doug Hughes wrote on 01/16/06 8:38 AM

Gee Joe? Whatever is it that you have in mind for Unity? If only I knew...
Simon Horwith

Simon Horwith wrote on 01/16/06 10:11 AM

Joe, I'm just curious - why do you say that this will show people that they can be a &quot;cool Web 2.0 developer without learning Ruby&quot; when the concept of Web 2.0 has nothing to do with Ruby or any one technology? Not trying to be a pain - I'm just curious. Are there people who think you have to learn Ruby to build next-generation web applications???
Doug Hughes

Doug Hughes wrote on 01/16/06 10:23 AM

Simon - You're being way too literal. (What are you? A programmer?!) Joe?s just trying to build some enthusiasm by putting this teaser out there.

I presume Joe means that Ruby/Rails is currently ?cool?. He?s saying you can be cool and use ColdFusion too.

So, sit back and wait for the show!
Simon Horwith

Simon Horwith wrote on 01/16/06 10:29 AM

If that's the case, Doug, then I suggest Joe change that line of text to read &quot;Unity will make it easy for ColdFusion developers to create cool Web 2.0 applications&quot; or something along those lines. A lot of people out there do not know too much about the technical reality of &quot;Web 2.0&quot; and suggesting that it's a Ruby thing (or a .NET thing, etc.) is a bit miseading. Just a suggestion.
j.d.

j.d. wrote on 01/16/06 11:03 AM

Ohmigawd! I sooo cannot wait! I just started using MG after debating between it and the other frameworks.

So, Simon, can you provide us the technical reality of Web 2.0? Just not sure what you mean...
Simon Horwith

Simon Horwith wrote on 01/16/06 11:12 AM

What I am referring to is the fact that &quot;Web 2.0&quot; is nothing more than an idea. To generalize, it's based on good looking intelligent clients, leveraging the tons of data and functionality on the web, and creating a slick user-centric experience for people. The server-side piece of this can be accomplished using pretty much any server-side technology and, currently, Flash (Flex or otherwise) and AJAX are the 2 popular technologies for developing such a client. Though pretty much any server side technology can be used for the server side piece, ColdFusion is ideal because of it's build-in Flash remoting gateway and rapid ease of use for database integration and web service publishing.
Marcth

Marcth wrote on 01/16/06 1:58 PM

Talk about shameless self-promotion ;)

It is safe to assume the much anticipated--pale only in comparison to the mythical version 2.0--release of ModelGlue 1.1 will be available for download in the not-so-distant future? And if it is not too great a request, would it be possible to post a list of all those who contributed to this next release? It?d be nice to associate the contributors to a solution I plan on using/promoting.

Thanks,

m.
Brandon Whitehall

Brandon Whitehall wrote on 01/17/06 12:14 PM

I hope the Web 2.0 part of the announcment does not mean that views must be implemented with Ajax. As many of you already know, Ajax-based views are not section 508 (visually impaired) compliant. Personally, I love Ajax, but as a government contractor, I have to follow certain guidelines in my view construction which currently does not allow for Ajax. If Ajax-based view construction is included out of box, hopefully it will be implemented as a option via plugins.
Joe

Joe wrote on 01/17/06 12:33 PM

Hey Brandon,

Nope, absolutely no requirement to use Ajax for anything. I'm a US government contractor, too :).

-Joe

Write your comment



(it will not be displayed)