Monday, August 18, 2003
CFHTTP patched up and good to go
With CFHTTP in such a sorrowful state in early CFMX I thought I'd hunt around for a java based alternative. I stumbled across HTTPClient and used it for a while importing feeds into Fullasagoog. I was stoked to find out that Macromedia have used HTTPClient to replace the old shot-in-the-head CFHTTP libraries.
It appears Bug 48012 where CFHTTP would simply not time out has finally been fixed. Not to mention a few choice additions to the tags functionality including support for all HTTP 1.1 operations (GET, POST, HEAD, PUT, DELETE, OPTIONS, TRACE). Brandon Purcell covers the tag in a little more detail.
Posted by modius at 01:45 AM | Permalink
Trackback: http://blog.daemon.com.au/cgi-bin/dmblog/mt-tb.cgi/79
If you were programming to a "specification" that was implemented by many companies, you wouldn't have had this problem. Instead, you are programming to a product...
And the advantages are what?
Posted by: No one on August 18, 2003 08:45 AM
The advantages?? Well I had the choice of going to HTTPClient or the Apache equiv (cos they are Java and CF is Java). Could have done it with a third-party COM object (CF supports COM through JIntegra). Or hell I could have written my own sockets client in any number of languages including Java -- but what a waste of time.
My point was, CFMX's initial implementation had issues (as indeed have versions of Apache HTTPClient and the HTTPClient mentioned here). But now I have a fantastically simple abstraction for using HTTPClient, my preferred library.
What's the point of any code simplification?? Very few of us program in assembly anymore. Very few of us work without public libraries of one description or other.
Posted by: Geoff Bowers on August 18, 2003 09:41 AM
The advantages are not having to deal with a low-level API to achieve the end result. Faster development time and cheaper maintenance.
Posted by: seancorfield on August 18, 2003 10:00 AM
If you were programming to a "specification" that was implemented by many companies, you wouldn't have had this problem. Instead, you are programming to a product...
And the advantages are what?
Posted by: No one on August 18, 2003 08:45 AM
The advantages?? Well I had the choice of going to HTTPClient or the Apache equiv (cos they are Java and CF is Java). Could have done it with a third-party COM object (CF supports COM through JIntegra). Or hell I could have written my own sockets client in any number of languages including Java -- but what a waste of time.
My point was, CFMX's initial implementation had issues (as indeed have versions of Apache HTTPClient and the HTTPClient mentioned here). But now I have a fantastically simple abstraction for using HTTPClient, my preferred library.
What's the point of any code simplification?? Very few of us program in assembly anymore. Very few of us work without public libraries of one description or other.
Posted by: Geoff Bowers on August 18, 2003 09:41 AM
The advantages are not having to deal with a low-level API to achieve the end result. Faster development time and cheaper maintenance.
Posted by: seancorfield on August 18, 2003 10:00 AM