Well, I have been using DW CS3 for a while now. I must say, as I have said before, that it does not seem like a new version to me. It seems like they just took DW8, added the spry stuff, and called it DW CS3. I totally feel sorry for those that have paid for an upgrade only to find the same product with a new name. For me, this is probably one of the most disappointing product offerings I have ever seen.
Today I ran into another stupid bug that just makes me think that it was not tested. Try this, open a site that has an ftp remote and be in local view. Right click on a folder and create a new file. Name it something like test.cfc and then open the file. You will see that the file has a basic default component structure. Now, switch to remote and do the same. Open the remote file and see what you get. You should get a file that contains default html instead of the default component.
One of these days I will figure out how to get around the technical limitation of CFEClipse so I can use it.
--Dave
#1 by Phillip Senn on 5/24/07 - 6:32 AM
Well, look at it from Adobe's perspective: It was a lot of housekeeping.
Surely you've rewritten versions of your software where the end-user probably didn't see anything, haven't you?
#2 by Brian Rinaldi on 5/24/07 - 7:38 AM
Umm...what are you referring to? I have been using it for years and haven't hit a technical limitation, so please explain what you are seeing?
#3 by adampasz on 5/24/07 - 8:00 AM
#4 by Dave on 5/24/07 - 8:11 AM
--Dave
#5 by Scott Fegette on 5/24/07 - 12:50 PM
We're considering deeper JS/rich UI workflows for the next version- what would you like to see? Post a comment and I'd be happy to marshal it into the DW team.
- scott/adobe
#6 by Dave on 5/24/07 - 1:02 PM
With all due respect this is the same rhetoric that I have heard since DW MX. The only difference was back then Macromedia was the one wanting to make it better. I have personally talked with may folks back in the Macromedia days about how DW is not a coding IDE and they recognized that. They also recognized they need to do something about it.
--Dave
#7 by Scott Fegette on 5/24/07 - 1:16 PM
There's several of us inside who would love to concentrate more on server-side features - but at the end of the day we build features as the DW user base demands, and server-side coding features have also consistently ranked lower in surveys, user studies and hands-on work observations across the user base as design-time features. That's just the nature of the beast- like it or not - we'll revisit it each DW release cycle accordingly.
I don't do rhetoric - that's the PR department's gig, I shoot from the hip - so please take this as delivered- one person's opinion from within the walls. ;-)
#8 by Dave on 5/24/07 - 1:31 PM
--Dave
#9 by Brian Rinaldi on 5/24/07 - 5:33 PM
You do know you can set up FTP in Eclipse right? Sure it doesn't auto-upload, but I have to admit I can't imagine where this would be necessary.
Ok, so your logic also seems a bit off. If coders have abandoned Dreamweaver why should they update it for coders? Why would they not focus on the designers who are their core users?
#10 by AndyM on 5/25/07 - 4:58 PM
#11 by Larry C. Lyons on 7/30/07 - 6:10 AM
btw welcome to CF-Guru.
regards,
larry