Pre-release for ColdFusion Splendor

Here’s some exciting news about ColdFusion Splendor. We will soon have pre-release open for Adobe ColdFusion Splendor, next major version of ColdFusion server and ColdFusion Builder Thunder, next major version of ColdFusion Builder. This time we will have a single pre-release program for both Builder and Server. 

If you are interested in being a part of the pre-release, do take this survey linked here.

Please realize that participating in this survey does not guarantee a pre-release invite. The plan is to start the pre-release with a reduced number of participants and eventually increase the number of pre-release of participants. You will receive an invite as soon as your interest is accepted. The acceptance may happen now or in the coming months when we decide to increase the number of pre-release participants.

Your participation will be valuable in shaping up the future version of ColdFusion.



37 Responses

  1. @Dave, I really hope we both get accepted: whether we’re popular or otherwise, I think it’s good for ColdFusion to have some bods that are a bit… “less forgiving” than a lot of the types that usually get onto to the programme. Hopefully Andy Scott gets onto the programme too.

    Fingers crossed.

    @Aaron: it’s good news for CF that you’re signing up for this.

    @Martin: where do you think they *do* the work to fix the CF10 bugs?


  2. Looking forward to the Splendor Release. This should be interesting.

    I’d like to see alot of us that were in Centaur and Zeus get accepted into the Pre-Release. We did alot of stuff…made some good progress too.

  3. I definitely like the ideal of the bugs being worked out before hand on the current versions, but hey that probably will never happen before a new release. Have been through several versions of CF and have not stopped yet, have no intention of going to a new programming language; other than some php, jqery action and javasctipt.

    Program in CF everyday – Long Live Fusion….


  4. @Adam : Thanks! You have been an outstanding contributor. Yes, a thorough, grumpy, d****** tester. Oh wait a minute, I just meant a thorough, grumpy, devoted tester 😉

    @Stan: Thanks! Did you fill the survey?

    @Gavin: Great to see your enthusiasm! This keeps us going in building the product that has a passionate following.

  5. @Richard: But you can still participate in the pre-release.

    @Aaron: Thanks! Here’s our yet another top contributor filling up the survey.

    @Martin: A pre-release for Splendor doesn’t mean that our current version will be ignored. You will see us coming up with updates for CF10 with bug fixes. Product conceptualization and development cannot happen in such a serialized manner where we fix every bug in CF10 and then move to the next version. Bugs will keep coming and we have plan for fixing them while there is work happening on the next version.

  6. @David: Have you logged a bug for the websocket issue. Do let me knowthe bug number once you have filed a report. And, yes thanks for taking the survey!

    @Adam: There you go again. Hopefully when you see CF10 updates with bug fixes you will realize that we *do* work on CF10 bugs.

    @J Harvey: Thanks! Absolutely, good contributors from the previous pre-release will surely have an edge.

    @Ty Whalin: Thanks! And yes, Long Live Fusion!

  7. @Adam,

    Thanks very much! =D Likewise, it is good news for CF that you, and David, and everyone else here with such a very strong passion for CF is filling out the survey. Let’s keep CF rocking forward! You’re also always a *HUGE* contribution to the CFB Prerelease too 🙂 I look forward to another round 🙂


    Thank you =)

    @Rakshith and @Adam,

    Regarding this: “where do you think they *do* the work to fix the CF10 bugs?”

    I -believe- Adam was actually being positive and was implying his answer w/o actually saying it. Example:
    Question: where do you think they *do* the work to fix the CF10 bugs?
    Answer: in the Prerelease

    I -think- that is what he was implying. I believe he was not saying you don’t work on CF bugs in the PR. Rather, I believe he is saying you *do* do work on CF bugs in the PR.

    Hopefully I was a good translator! =P I think Adam was actually being positive here, but I will let him reply.

    @David, I definitely want to look into the WebSocket issue further as well, btw. I just hadn’t had time to try to figure out a repro case. If you have some time to isolate some code that shows the issue, and add that to the ticket too, then I’ll definitely try it out too and vote as well.


  8. I am hoping that with CF-Splendor (11) we get some extended CFScript equivilents to CFTags, like header(), spreadsheet(), and other tags.

    Let’s the the ColdFusion HOT…

  9. I would also like to see a CFBuilder Thunder for Linux (If CFBuilder will remain on the Eclipse Platform).

    I feel its imperative that if CF is supported on a Platform, the IDE for it should be too. 🙂 *Crosses Fingers, in Hope*

    I like Ecplise, and the CFEclipse Plugin – But it’s hardly mananged anymore. 🙁

  10. @J harvey – From what I heard (this is oldish info), the issue lies in the Adobe Licensing Software not supporting linux… so it wasn’t a CF Builder issue, more an Adobe wide licensing software issue. I guess once there is enough demand for adobe products on linux in general, they might update the licensing software, and then its on the CF Engineering team.
    Although, this info is a little old, this is the last i heard about it… hope it is still accurate.

  11. @Gavin,
    I see now. There was never any ‘Clarity’ on Why – But if it is a licensing Server thing, then that makes sense, and I’m stuck with the Linux Eclipse/CFEclipse (Will probably have to do some definition updates).

    Anyhow, Thanks for the insight Gavin.

    P.S. : From my research through the Linux Forums (Primarily via ubuntu) there is a high demand from the *nix community…

  12. @Aaron: Thanks for the clarifying.

    @Adam: Sorry for not following what you intended to say.

    @J Harvey: Gavin is right. We are keen to offer CFB on Linux, hopefully we will be able to make headway this time.

    @Gavin: The licensing continues to be problem on Linux. Thanks for clarifying it.

  13. @Rakshith: I’m not expecting right off the Launch or Pre-release, but I would love to see it hopefully within the CF11 Roadmap Life-cycle. I can admit, that I’m probably one of the odd, and rare people who actually prefer Linux versus windows…

    I’ll like to see some headway happen on that front – but We shall indeed see.

  14. My excitement isn’t nearly as great as others. I use CF for a lot of middleware type stuff. Integration with many outside vendors with varying levels of technical capabilities. Adding Secure FTP nearly brought me to tears, but I see no hope or interest in from the community to simplify the many other common tasks I experience.

    * It completely boggles my mind that CertMan, the certificate manager developed by the community, has never been built into CF Administrator as a feature. Management of certs should be a brainless addition. It’s so commonplace, especially when working with webServices. It should be standard.

    * CFZip – I don’t care if the java libraries Adobe uses for ColdFusion don’t support passwords and advanced features. Build it and include it!

    * Native PGP support. I can’t be the only developer that would drool over such a feature. It’s so common today, especially in the PCI compliance world we live in. This is another no-brainer.

    Don’t get me wrong, ColdFusion saves me countless days of development time to get a process running and the automation capabilities save my team as we lose resources to layoffs. The features I mentioned above are things I’ve been praying for since CF 4.5, and I’ve given up hope. The community does provide some support, but it’s hodgepodge and often times becomes abandonware.

  15. You could help yourself here, Scott.

    I see no enhancement request asking for CertMan support. How is Adobe supposed to know anyone wants it if no-one asks for it?

    Equally (and this surprises me), there is no enhancement request that *I* can find which asks for pwds on zip files. I would certainly vote for that.

    There’s also no E/R for PGP.

    So… err… instead of complaining that they’re not in there, how about you ask for them?

    Raise the tickets, circulate the URLs to them, and see if anyone else cares about these things (I’m sure you will get some support). I’ll vote for the Zip one. I don’t personally care about the other two.

    I think your anguish is a bit misdirected, in the particular instances you cite.


  16. Cheers Aaron. I dunno why that ticket wasn’t transferred over from the old system… most of them were. It’s good to see that ticket has seven votes already… that’s grounds for it to be migrated across in and of itself.


  17. I know these enhancements have been widely discussed in the community in the past. I’d always assumed E/R’s were put in and faintly recall Forta discussing the topic.

    @Aaron – From our enterprise standpoint, I’m seeing requirements to not only encrypt the obvious, Credit Card info and Tax Info, but also baseline customer data. All is fine and dandy in PCI subnet with db encryption on those fields, but the challenge is the transfer of large datasets that may be “at rest” for any amount of time on a share or FTP server.

    Where do I submit enhancement requests? Are they ditched after each version release?

  18. I still have a bug from CF7 that needs fixing but I understand CF11 might replace the HTML/CSS rendering engine for PDF creation anyway.

    If I don’t use Builder but totally love CF would I still qualify for beta testing CF? If the new Builder is going to tempt me away from Dreamweaver then it would be a pleasure to take it around the test track a few times. 😉

    I have a new mobile app to create for my customers… been waiting for CF11 to build it with rather than do it all in DW & PhoneGap. Very excited in what Adobe have planned to simplify or turbo charge the development process. 🙂

  19. @Scott. This is the URL: Plug: you can track new bugs & E/Rs by following @cfbugnotifier on Twitter (that’s a little thing I knocked together so as to be able to keep an eye on things).

    For some unknown reason which defies logic, at the end of a release cycle Adobe CLOSE all tickets that they consider but don’t actually then do anything about (ones they don’t look at at all just get left as-is, it seems, so it’s a very mixed message), but they don’t delete them. However a bunch of old tickets seem to have been lost or not migrated when they switched systems (@Aaron gives you an example above).

    This ticket-closing thing they do helps neither them nor community participation, because it means often someone will see a closed ticket and then raise a new ticket covering the same ground (wastes everyone’s time), or people will find a ticket, see it’s closed, and thinks it’s Adobe’s final say on the matter (which it is not, necessarily), which is pretty bad PR. I mean coming across a non-trivial bug which is closed as “not enough time”, is pretty bad messaging. This ought to be addressed. I think they ought to get someone in to explain to them how to use a bug tracker properly / productively, and change their approach somewhat.


  20. “CF11 might replace the HTML/CSS rendering engine for PDF creation anyway”

    I really hope so. That is one of my biggest/primary requests. When both cfdocument and cfpdf have scale=”100″, there is a long-standing (since at least CF8?) odd issue where content is still shrunk. I mention it in every release. I’ve been using ICE Browser’s API to work around the issue. However, CF10 Update 1 broke my ICE Browser workaround. And I seem to have lost my copy of the ICE Browser docs (it’s actually an EOL’d product – so docs not online anymore). So, I’m stuck manually replacing the updated ICE Browser jars in CF10 updaters w/ the pre-Update1 jars every time there’s an update – which also means I can’t utilize any new ICE Browser fixes that may come out.

    “This ticket-closing thing they do helps neither them nor community participation”

    +1. And community participation would probably be improved if commenters received an email when others added a comment to same ticket. I know I’ve seen some tickets where an engineer asked for clarification – but there was no reply b/c the person who created the ticket never knew that the engineer had asked a question. Big thanks to both Elliott and Adam for the work they’ve done to improve the tracker experience!


Leave a reply