http://www.latimes.com/technology/la-fi-myspace5jul05,0,4701402.story?coll=la-home-headlines&track=hppromobox

for instance "Only Web giants Yahoo Inc. and Microsoft Corp. displayed more online ads in May than MySpace, according to research firm Nielsen/NetRatings."

There is lots more but the bottom line is MySpace running on CFML and FuseBox is one of the most heavily trafficked sites on the web and is growing rapidly.

Here's New Atlanta's press release for the topic. Not the chart you're looking for, but surely some cannon fodder for the managers.

http://www.newatlanta.com/corporate/news/myspace_announce.jsp

You might also want to check out the CFUNITED site (http://www.cfunited.com/) over the next week or two. I couldn't find them yet, but supposedly there will be additional stuff to download that wasn't in the attendee packet for the various sessions. Don't know if keynotes fit the bill, but they might.

Thanks in advance for your help, compadres!

So regardless of what your opinions are of BD, this is a win for CFML.

We deliberately deferred discussion of BD.NET until the end of Peter's talk because we *didn't* want this to come across as a pure sales pitch. (I guess no matter how hard you try, you just can't please everybody…sigh).

You should read the summary of the keynote that I posted on my blog and review the original slides (a link is on my blog):

http://blog.newatlanta.com/index.cfm?mode=entry&entry=DCE930CB-C4BB-BCD4-66AE12F14C9315A7

Compare my summary to the original presentation starting on slide 18, and I think you'll see my summary is accurate. That's the real meat of the presentation as far as their reasons for switching to BlueDragon.NET.

And, yes, they did try to upgrade to CFMX and use the JDBC drivers for SQL Server, but they didn't work. I wasn't there for that testing, so I can't really comment, but problems with the CFMX JDBC drivers are common knowledge and well-documented. I'd also that to point out that BlueDragon wasn't brought into the picture until *after* MySpace had already evaluated and rejected CFMX.

I can't really comment. Though I've never had issues with CF's database drivers, I can see how they could be problematic. However, those problems are nothing more than you'd run into with any piece of Java-based code.

Java is fundementally platform independant, while .NET is fundementally platform dependant. Because of that, you should expect to see better performance on just about every aspect of an application with .NET. The cost is that you HAVE to have Windows servers, and almost have to be using SQL server, while with a Java app, you can pick your platform and database from a whole list.

Same thing goes for SQL Server. .NET should (and from what I understand does) absolutely SLAUGHTER any other platform for connections with SQL Server, because it's 100% native from end to end. CFMX uses JDBC, which is intentionally not native, instead using an abstraction layer so your application's aren't tied to a single database. Sure, you might not get screaming performance with a particular database, but you'll get reasonable performance with EVERY database.

So it's just a different approach. MS has a "you must do it this way" approach, while the Java world generally has a "here's a tool, do what you want" approach.

I think you're kind of missing the point. Jennifer's comment is almost perfectly dead-on as to why the example reflects poorly on New Atlanta.

Note that nowhere has any mention of BD.NET occured. In fact, BD.NET is almost certainly a better platform for MySpace.com than what they were running, because of their specific needs.

It's not a good example. Because they detailed the things about their architecture that are really bad and said that X let them get around their really bad architecture, it leaves the audience wondering why such a horrible architecture was used as an example for how a product can help others. The primary implication is that they couldn't get a better example and if they couldn't get a better example, the audience is forced to wonder why. The next and more insulting implication is that the software can help us because we all build things with attrocious architecture like the example site.

There's nothing quite like a sales pitch that features examples that insult the intelligence of the audience.

I'm just looking at this in isolation – I wasn't at the keynote and I've no idea who MySpace are but…

"They switch to ADO.NET native drivers, rather than the JDBC drivers that CF uses"

is the biggest worry about New Atlanta using another idea for db connections?

Do you not consider this an area where CF (of what ever breed) is not the strongest area? I mean, there's more than a few people frustrated at the (lack of) features and performance of the humble cfquery/cfstoredproc tag, instead using java for their connections and transactions.

ADO (and more so ADO.NET) is pretty powerful. Having the ability to talk natively to the database is, IMHO, a big plus (with the drawbacks being for other RDBMS – SQLclient for SQLServer and OLE-DB for everything else).

My point is that there can be some real weaknesses with CF and database interconnectivity, when push comes to shove*. Features are barely at the ADO (classic) level, let alone the huge steps forward MS took with ADO.NET.

While I also might not agree with what NA have done, do they at least have a point in a specialised area (.NET platform)?

just my 2c
barry.b

(PS: "INsufficient" not "unsufficient", yes?)

* "data shaping", multiple recordsets in a dataset, data "relations" (querying across recordsets in memory by defining relationships between the recordsets), native XML support into and out of the database, etc. And these are only features ADO.NET does that I want, let alone native instead of a JDBC "swamp"