Luis please read, your content-box is a typical example of the conventions I ask for and you refuse to add


I have lost count how long ago I asked that services be added as a convention, that it acted the same as handlers, plugins etc. and your latest project is a typical example of why I asked for it.

I downloaded the latest ContentBox, ran it on a very fast server by todays example. It threw an error, and I had to refresh for it to work again. The error message was an ORM message, which means it is timing out on searching for ORM entities.

I have sent you in the last 3 months around 3 personal emails asking for this to be adopted, your current project ContentBox is a typical example where the ORM entities need to be separated from the rest of the project, and added to the settings in Application.cfc, even after my lengthy posts on how this can and will affect future projects, you have ignored me.

Secondly I have also asked that services be by convention also, and you continue to ignore me on that too.

Coming from a grails background as well as ColdFusion, I have loved ColdBox. But the two things that annoy me the most is that services and entities (Domain Models) are still not considered segregated from the rest as plugins and handlers are.

Not only does your ContentBox experience this problem, but I have 7 projects that also require that these conventions take place. I also have many projects that I would like to also release, but they conform to the needs of these 2 conventions being a part of ColdBox. Now I know they both can be setup by people changing their core application to run them. The point is that by convention means one doesn’t have to make changes, just drop the modules in and it works.

Now I beg you…… Before ColdBox 3.5 is released, please for god sake lets add these 2 new conventions!!

I feel I have to say something.

Perhaps I'm mis-reading the intent of your email Andrew, but your tone is appalling - it always is. It's condescending, aggressive and rude.

If you want a convention for this stuff, fork it, hack it and send in a pull request.


If I had the time I would, and the sad thing is that I don’t.

Yet I have kept up with the current tickets since asking for this request, and had even a lengthy discussion in a previous post as to why it is required. Since then I have continued to ask for it, and nobody but myself seems to understand why it is needed.

Now if that means my attitude is appalling, or condescending, even explaining the reason why it is needed, and seeing a post that Luis wants to release 3.5 and not consider this then I have nothing more to say.

Anyone who knows how entities works, should know it searches the entire path specified or the entire web root. Luis has made it very clear he is not interested by ignoring, personal emails from me, so that means I now have every right to voice my public opinion of the problem.

If that offends, I frankly don’t care.

Because at the end of the day I am looking out for something as great as ColdBox is not left behind in what would make it even better, not that Luis hasn’t done a great job as it is. But more along the lines in the future, well I did this, but get an ORM time out when I run your application for the first time. Oh well then you should just refresh and it will work, is not an acceptable response in my opinion for any support response.

Andrew, if this is a business-critical piece for you, then I would
suggest engaging Ortus Solutions on a commercial basis to address this
issue for you. There have obviously been a number of discussions about
the subject on this list and, obviously, the folks who have the time,
knowledge and wherewithall to contribute that feature set on a free,
open source basis either don't agree with the approach you advocate or
simply prioritize other features and work on those instead.

Fortunately, most open source projects these days also have commercial
support and development services available to supplement the free work
contributed by the community. Ortus provides such services for
ColdBox. There may be others as well, I'm unsure. But the standard
answer to these sorts of dilemmas with open source is 1) Convince
someone to write and contribute it 2) Do it yourself and contribute
it or 3) Pay someone to write it and contribute it. If 1 isn't
working for you and 2 isn't possible because you are busy enough
working with the software to make a good living on top of it, then I'd
suggest it is probably worth your while to go route number 3.


Andy, dude, because you have gotten no response does not entitle you to evil surmise that Luis’ intent was to ignore you. Nobody but him has any idea what the details of his daily itinerary include…it could be that he took your advice and is actually working on that very thing right now, but simply overlooked keeping you in the loop on his progress or thoughts on the matter. I know him personally, and of ALL people, he is not the kind of man to be anything even close to rude.

To leverage a bit of your logic, as you made it publicly available to us, you have made it very clear that you’re being kind of a dick, so that means I now have every right to voice my public opinion on your lame attempt to use a public forum to coerce Luis into giving you the attention you so desperately crave of him. You’re being kind of a dick, man. If you PAID for the framework, I’d say yeah, you probably have a leg to stand on; but Luis freely shared it, it was free, and you chose to use it “as is”. As was stated, if you don’t like it as is, stop belly aching, make a change, and contribute your awesome sauce work back into the project. That’s how these things are supposed to work. That said, perhaps you could “sponsor” such a change, as is done with the Railo open source project, and help your suggestion float to the top of what is undoubtedly a long list. Just a thought. But man, you should probably vent the bulk of your frustrations in private over a pint or something.

All that said, I don’t know you, but I hope we run into one another one day so we can chat.

Doug Boude (rhymes with ‘loud’)