Smith Project - a first look
I downloaded the
Smith Project and took it for a test drive.
First off, as I mentioned at the end of my
earlier blog post, the integrated Linux version, with Jetty included, does not work on Mac OS X.
So I tried the WAR deployment next. My first target was JRun but it wouldn't work there. So I tried Tomcat 6. Nope. Tomcat 5.5. Success!
Smith starts up (in just under 6 seconds) and some very basic CFML pages show it working. I try the admin console and all the pages come up but no setting changes take effect. Hmm...
Well, let's try something a little more complicated. Let's try Fusebox 5 and the skeleton application.
It doesn't like this:
<cfcatch type="any" />
It requires this:
<cfcatch type="any"></cfcatch>
There's a few of tho' in the Fusebox core files.
It doesn't implement
cfprocessingdirective. Fine, I'll just comment that out in
fusebox5.cfm. Now I'm just getting an impenetrable compiler error about some exception already having been caught in the compiler, flagging a
cfinclude.
Anyone else had any experience with Smith yet?
Tags: coldfusion · oss
15 responses so far ↓
1 Stewart Robinson // May 15, 2007 at 4:13 AM
2 Jonathan van Zuijlekom // May 15, 2007 at 7:10 AM
From the look of it it doesn't support the CFMX 7 application framework. CFC's however are supported.
3 Jonathan van Zuijlekom // May 15, 2007 at 7:25 AM
4 Reuben // May 15, 2007 at 8:06 AM
5 David Epler // May 15, 2007 at 8:10 AM
When I 1st heard about Smith Project, I threw both Fusebox 4.1 and 5.0 core files at it. Both had problems which I posted back to the smith forum (http://www.smithproject.org/forum/posts/list/4.page)
I haven't tried the Fusebox 3 files, but my guess is that the *nix version would work since they didn't use <cfrethrow>.
Hopefully with it going OSS, they can get the issues resolved.
6 Sean Corfield // May 15, 2007 at 8:43 AM
Any suggestions?
7 Patrick McElhaney // May 15, 2007 at 9:58 AM
8 Sean Corfield // May 15, 2007 at 10:25 AM
9 Brandon Harper // May 15, 2007 at 10:39 PM
If you post a question to the forum no one even acknowledges it. It's something I'd really like to get behind and would definitely even submit patches for if I felt like there were someone there (after a quick browse through the source code, I already see some performance enhancements which could be made to the Java code that the parser generator creates).
I'm glad they finally open sourced the code, but I wish that the developers provided more visibility. Or maybe there is another venue besides the forum that I'm missing...
10 Sean Corfield // May 15, 2007 at 11:50 PM
11 Fred B // May 16, 2007 at 6:46 AM
12 Brandon Harper // May 16, 2007 at 8:38 AM
Ah, makes sense. I usually omit the www just out of habit being that there is rarely a good technical reason to use it these days (I've been watching the project for awhile).
13 Aaron Lynch // May 29, 2007 at 2:13 PM
More on this at http://cfopen.instantspot.com
I honestly haven't run much CF in it, but have been trying to get tools together that would help everybody get their hands dirty with it.
14 Reuben // May 30, 2007 at 8:32 AM
15 Aaron Lynch // May 30, 2007 at 9:25 AM
We have tossed that idea around (multiple CF processors on one VM), but it won't be made part of this cfopen concept. Merely because the other options are not open source.
Leave a Comment