[Looking for Charlie's main web site?]

CFMAIL being detected as spam? Some solutions for CF 6, 7, and 8

Note: This blog post is from 2008. Some content may be outdated--though not necessarily. Same with links and subsequent comments from myself or others. Corrections are welcome, in the comments. And I may revise the content as necessary.
Someone asked on a list about how to resolve the problem where messages sent via CFMAIL have a message-id value that can cause mail to be flagged as spam. I mentioned in an earlier entry how to solve this in CF8. In this entry, I offer a couple of solutions for CF 6 and 7.

To backup and explain the problem, some have lamented that in CFMX 6 and 7, CFMAIL used the name of your server where CF is installed, which might be something like "server1" or "bingo", as in:

Message-ID: <23070863.1197039960343.JavaMail.SYSTEM@Server1>

This might cause a recipient mail server to flag the mail as spam, if the mail server was a different domain name (like "yourcompany.com"). The bummer was that many found no way to fix this. Sure, in CF5 you could set it in a CFMAILPARAM to set a mail header, but CF 6 and above ignores that.

The good news for those on CF 8 is that a change makes the problem go away, which I talked about in a blog entry back in December.

But for those still on 6 or 7, I'd mentioned that there's an available code or (preferably) configuration fix to resolve the problem. Apologies for not posting it at the time, so here it is. I also explain what the issue is all about, for those not aware of it.

Simple CF5 solution doesn't work in 6, 7, or 8

First, let me point out that some may propose that one can just use CFMAILPARAM to set that message-id header, as was mentioned in this FAQ:

http://www.developer.be/index.cfm/fuseaction/faqDetail/FaqId/201.htm

Unfortunately, that's a very old FAQ and it no longer applies after CF5.

CFMX 6 (and 7 and 8) ignore that header you set and set the message-id themselves to the name of the physical server from which the mail's sent. Here's an example, from my laptop (which is named charlied620):

Message-ID: <23070863.1197039960343.JavaMail.SYSTEM@CharlieD620>

On your server, it could be that the problem is that the server is a real domain name, but it's not the same name as the SMTP server through which you're sending email via CFMAIL, and some servers won't let mail through with FROM addresses having a different domain name.

Why doesn't CF just use the SERVER set in CFMAIL or the CF Admin?

You might wish/expect it would just use name of the mail server as specified in the CF Admin mail server setting or the CFMAIL SERVER attribute, but it does not (at least, not prior to CF8, as discussed in my earlier entry.)

But while researching this problem for the person, I found this, where a very compelling solution was proposed. I tested it, and it does indeed work.

It turns out that you can get CFMAIL to use a specific mail server, either of 2 ways, for CF 6, 7, or 8 (again, on CF8, the easier solution is that I discussed in the earlier entry). Ken Smith of Adobe offered it also in this Adobe forum thread. If you make this change, either server-wide or per page/app, you will now find that the CFMAIL sets the message-id to use a desired servername.

Solution for 6, 7, or 8: Configuring it at CF Startup

If you're on a server where you want to change this for all CFMAIL (and javamail) done from within CF, you can change the JVM.config for your server to add this to the java.args line:

-Dmail.host=desiredservername

That java.args line is one long line. Don't introduce any line breaks. You need to restart the server after making that change. As always, when editing the JVM.config (in the runtim/bin directory of CF), make a backup first, because if you get it wrong, your server won't restart. (Or leave the file open and be prepared to do an Undo in your editor.)

But if you don't want to (or can't) mess with the startup file, or more important, if you are on a server where each app may need to do its own setting, you're not out of luck.

Solution for 6, 7, or 8: Changing it programatically

You can also make the needed change on the fly, programatically. You could issue this set of code just before your CFMAIL:

<cfscript>
sysObj = CreateObject("java", "java.lang.System");
sysObj.setProperty("mail.host", "desiredservername");
</cfscript>

I tried this per-page setting in in 6 and 7 and it worked fine. For CF8, the code will run, but it won't affect the CFMAIL for reasons I explain in the next section. But there's a real problem with this approach, if you're on a shared CF server. You're still setting the value for the entire CF server, but you're just doing it on the fly. It has at least a few problems you need to think about:

  • you'll affect all who use CFMAIL on this server (at least in 6, and 7, since CF8 ignores this, as discussed below)
  • you'll also affect anyone who uses Javamail on this instance of CF
  • and if someone else on the server issue the same code with a different server name, that of course would override your setting

There are a few things you can do to mitigate the problem, but they're not entirely perfect.

First, you could get the current mail.host value (in case it's different), then change it to what you want, and then change it back. You could do that with this code:

<cfscript>
   sysObj = CreateObject("java", "java.lang.System");
   // if there is no mail.host set already, this next variable simply won't be created. need to know that for later.    oldmailserver = sysObj.getProperty("mail.host");
</cfscript>

Note that if the mail.host property has not been set in the startup config or by someone else running such code, then the getproperty will return nothing, and the oldmailserver variable literally will not be created (a curiosity of working with some java methods).

Once you have the oldmailserver (or know that it did not exist), you can do the set of the property and the cfmail as above, then you could set it back with the following:

<cfscript>
// reverse the setting of the mail.host, so as not to affect others on this server if (not isdefined("oldmailserver")) {
   // if there was no previously set mail.host, remove the property
   sysObj.getProperties().remove("mail.host");
}
else{
   // set it back to what it was before
   sysObj.setProperty("mail.host", oldmailserver);
}
</cfscript>

There's still a problem. Because of CF's multi-threaded nature, it's entirely possible that between your setting the host and doing your CFMAIL, someone else could also set the mail server to something different. (This is called a "race condition".)

Now, Mr. Smith in the threads above suggested that you could wrap the code doing the change and the CFMAIL in a named lock, but that's an incomplete solution. It will prevent other other code (that ALSO does the same named lock) from running until yours is complete, but it won't help if others do the set of the property without bothering to use the same named lock (or use a differently named lock).

That's a frequent misconception about locks. They don't prevent other code doing what you're doing in the lock: they only tell other code that IS using the same lock not to run while this lock is held--and even then, only if you use an EXCLUSIVE lock, which he didn't indicate.

So the bottom line is that as useful as the feature is to set the property dynamically, it's fraught with peril in an environment where multiple apps may try to use the code. Only if you can guarantee that all use the same named lock will you be able to protect against this problem is held up while you have the value changed:

<cflock name="setmail-servername" timeout="10" type="EXCLUSIVE">

   <cfscript>
   sysObj = CreateObject("java", "java.lang.System");
   // if there is no mail.host set already, this next variable simply won't be created. need to know that for later.    oldmailserver = sysObj.getProperty("mail.host");
   sysObj.setProperty("mail.host", "desiredserver");
   </cfscript>

   <cfmail ...>
   ...
   </cfmail>
   
   <cfscript>
   // reverse the setting of the mail.host, so as not to affect others on this server    if (not isdefined("oldmailserver")) {
      // if there was no previously set mail.host, remove the property
      sysObj.getProperties().remove("mail.host");
   }
   else{
      // set it back to what it was before
      sysObj.setProperty("mail.host", oldmailserver);
   }
   </cfscript>
</cflock>

Now, someone may propose that all this could be wrapped up into UDFs or CFC methods, and perhaps it could, but since you need to do the setting of the value, and the mail, and the resetting of the value, all within a CFLOCK, it would be challenging to wrap all this up into a generically callable method (unless you wanted to pass in as well all the CMAIL attribute values and the body). Just seems not worth it, since this is a pretty esoteric problem and solution. But others can comment if they feel differently.

Solution for CF8 is much easier

All this is obviated on CF8, because it now properly uses the name of the server specified in the CF Admin mail server setting (or CFMAIL SERVER attribute, which overrides the CF Admin setting.) This is AWESOME news for those challenged by this, and hasn't gotten much press.

Now, what was the caveat I mentioned above? Well, if you use the approach of setting the mail.host servername in the java property, CF8 no longer pays attention to that. It JUST uses the CF Admin mail server setting, or the CFMAIL SERVER attribute. So that code above "won't work". It will work, but it won't affect CFMAIL. But that was a hack to work around CF not honoring these other attributes. I'm not surprised (or bummed myself) to see that it no longer regards the mail.host property for CFMAIL.

(I should say I'm saying this as of CF8. I've not tested it on 8.0.1.)

Some related notes

If you add the SERVER attribute, you may need to add the PORT, Username, and Password as well.

Here's a little bonus tip, in case you try to use the CFMAIL SERVER attribute for the first time on an existing CFMAIL tag to check this out. Note that using the SERVER attribute on CFMAIL requires you then to specify any other attributes required for the mail connection such as USERNAME and PASSWORD (if needed) and PORT (if not 25). What I mean is that it will no longer pick up the values in the CF Admin. If you override the SERVER, then you override the other config settings as well and need to specify them.

I'm not getting the emails now. Where are they?

If you make a mistake in your setting of the mail server arguments, then CF will move the failed emails to the [coldfusion]/mail/Undelivr directory where CF is installed. They're just plain text files. You can open them to see what got set and perhaps can figure out why they failed. You may also find information in the [coldfusion]/logs/mail.log.

When I look at mail in the spool, it looks fine (if I use CFMAILPARAM). Why doesn't it get through?

Don't be misled. The email you generate in CFMAIL may look fine in the [coldfusion]/mail/spool directory, but when it gets sent to the mail server, CF will change that message-id (and some other headers). You really need to look at the email as it's RECEIVED. You can't even look at the message in the Undelvr folder as an indication. It doesn't have those added headers.

So how DO I observe the mail headers?

You need to receive the email and then look at its headers. I'll show you how to do that in Outlook and gmail in a moment. Let me point out that it can be very englightening to view the message headers: not only the message-id but possibly also other headers as well as messages that CF, your mail server, or the mail server of your recipient may have added, which may include indications of whether your email was detected to be spam (perhaps by tools like SpamAssassin).

In Outlook, you can use View>Options while reading an email, to see the values in the "Internet Headers" box of the window that opens. Scroll down in that to find the message-id and other headers.

In gmail, when you open the message, look to the top right of the pane showing your email, to the right of the indicator of the time the message was received. There's a drop-down box, with options like "reply" and "forward". Choose "show original". That will show the complete message including all the headers at the top.

Other CFMAIL alternatives/replacements

Finally, I'll point out that if you run into other problems with CFMAIL, there are always alternative CF mail server solutions, like those I list in the "CFMAIL replacement/enhancement tools" section of my "Tools to Consider for CFML developers" page.

Hope that helps some.

Helpful info on SQL Server Diagnostics

Note: This blog post is from 2008. Some content may be outdated--though not necessarily. Same with links and subsequent comments from myself or others. Corrections are welcome, in the comments. And I may revise the content as necessary.
Here's a useful blog entry, "What if I suspect that my performance problem is in SQL server?". It's easy to blame CF for performance problems, but sometimes the problem is in the database--and it could be configuration, or database setup, all in addition to your own (or someone else's) SQL coding.

The entry focuses on using the tools known variously as PSSDIAG and SQLDIAG, either built-into SQL Server 2005 or available for free download for older editions, and it does a nice job of walking through it in a friendly way, with screenshots and more.

The entry is on the blog of Tess, a Microsoft support engineer, called If broken it is, fix it you should. While the majority of her entries are on .NET, this was a guest blog entry with a SQL Server support engineer. Despite her blog being mostly about .NET, there are occasional gems like this which are of equal value to CFers.

Working around an issue with CF and IIS 7 (related to .NET)

Note: This blog post is from 2008. Some content may be outdated--though not necessarily. Same with links and subsequent comments from myself or others. Corrections are welcome, in the comments. And I may revise the content as necessary.
Here's a tip about an error others may hit when configuring CF with IIS on Vista. I'll clarify that I'm on CF8, Vista SP1, and may possibly have installed some .NET 2.0-based apps or products, all of which could have contributed to this issue. YMMV.

UPDATE: I have an update on this: the reason I had the issue was not related to SP1. And it wasn't that I'd "installed a .NET 2.0 app" since I installed Vista. Rather, it turns out that it was because I'd restored from backup some files into my IIS docroot that included a web.config that DID have .NET 2.0 config entries. Even so, this could happen to others, or to others who DO install .NET 2.0 apps, so I leave it for others to consider.

I'd been running Vista for a while on my development machine, and though I'd installed CF8 on it without problem, I chose at first to use the built-in web server to start (both with the standalone and multiserver deployments of the CF8 Developer edition.)

Today I decided to hook it to IIS. Since I'd not made the choice to use IIS on install of CF 8, I of course used the web server configuration tool (start>programs>adobe>coldfusion 8>web server configuration tool). Though I'm on Vista Ultimate and could define more than one web site (a nice bonus of the Ultimate and Business editions all Vista editions, without needing to buy a Server edition of Windows), I had not defined any beyond the default web site. (Update: I spoke today with Bill Staples, one of the folks in charge of IIS 7, about this whole issue, which is when I realized it came about from me doing the restore. Anyway, he said that the support of multiple sites is something in all editions of Vista. Nice.)

(One interesting thing that happened was I got a popup telling me that CF would need a few minutes to configure itself with IIS 7. I took a screenshot of the window that popped up but lost it from the clipboard. Perhaps someone else will see it and can comment here what it says, to help those doing searches later. But as it said, after a couple of minutes it did take.)

Error on first CFM page request

But when I requested my first CFM page, I got a big ugly IIS 7 error page (an HTML page), the crux of which reported:

ASP.NET applications require migration when specifying configuration in <httpModules> or <httpHandlers>.

Yikes. It went on to provide various details on the problem as well as some workarounds. The gist was that the system.web httphandlers entry in the config files had something that was no longer compatible with the new, default "integrated mode" of IIS (defined as the "managed pipeline mode"). What had CF done? How would I best resolve it?

Quick and dirty workaround: Change mode to "classic"

One of the workarounds described changing the "mode" for the "managed pipeline mode" from "integrated" to "classic". This is defined in the site's application pool, which you can modify in the IIS manager (selecting "application pools", then the app pool (by default, the "default web site" uses "DefaultAppPool"). See the screenshot here.

Sure enough, changing it to "classic" made the problem go away, but that may not be the best solution.

Better Solution: Migrating the .NET settings in a single, simple step

I did some digging and found one blog entry with a good bit of info, and he seems to assert that this is just a breaking change in IIS 7 for ASP.NET 2.0 apps.

He also made the case for not using the workaround above (changing the mode to "classic"), as it could cause loss of many of the nifty features that IIS 7 adds. Instead, he proposed that one should instead seriously consider the option to upgrade the .NET 2.0 app config entries to work properly in integrated mode. Turns out this is just a simple command line command:

%SystemRoot%\system32\inetsrv\appcmd migrate config "Default Web Site/"

I had set the mode back to "integrated" to confirm that the error came back (it did), so I then dropped to the command line (using start>run and entering "cmd") and pasted that line verbatim (right-click and paste, not ctrl-v) onto the command line (again, since I'm using the "default web site"). It came back with 2 lines in response:

Successfully migrated section "system.web/httpHandlers".
Successfully migrated section "system.web/httpHandlers".

I then re-requested my CFM page, and it worked, so that seems the solution.

Since I knew I didn't have any custom-written .NET 2.0 apps on my machine, I knew there was no great risk to me doing this. (I had not myself built any .NET 2.0 apps of my own, but I may well have downloaded and installed some app that's built on it. So it's possible that if you have not, that you will not ever get this issue. I'm offering it for those who may, so they can find it on a web search.) (See my update at the top of this entry.)

The blog entry also implies that this may be an issue for SP1, so perhaps others who are not yet on SP1 won't have seen this problem yet. If anyone reads this who is not on SP1 and it solves things for you, do let us know in the comments. (Bill Staples also confirmed that this was not an issue new to SP1.)

Hope this has been helpful for someone.

PS Please, I'm not interested in any snide comments about the wisdom/folly of using Vista. Like others, I have my reasons for doing so, and I've been very satisfied with it so far. I share the above for others in the Vista boat, whether by their choice or others'.

No CF Meetup this week: Thurs Mar 27

Note: This blog post is from 2008. Some content may be outdated--though not necessarily. Same with links and subsequent comments from myself or others. Corrections are welcome, in the comments. And I may revise the content as necessary.
There will be no CF meetup meeting this week.

Besides not having any speakers who've proposed to speak, I'm out of town traveling in the great (rainy, chilly) northwest (where I was invited to an intimate Microsoft tech summit). I just don't know if my schedule will permit me to speak myself if I wanted to, so it's best not to set any expectations. Ray, also, is already committed, so we'll pick things up next week.

I'm always looking for speakers. I also have some interesting new ideas I'll be trying in coming weeks.

Stopping multiple form submissions with CF 7/8 and "submitonce" validation

Note: This blog post is from 2008. Some content may be outdated--though not necessarily. Same with links and subsequent comments from myself or others. Corrections are welcome, in the comments. And I may revise the content as necessary.
What happens in your app if a user hits the submit button more than once before the form is processed, such as when the form didn't come back quickly enough, so the user submitted the form again? Would you be interested to know that CF has a feature to prevent them doing that? It's an often-missed hidden gem of CF7.

Have you ever considered this prospect of multiple form submissions? What could happen? It could cause multiple inserts to a database, or multiple charges to a card, or unexpected increases in some session variable counter, etc., which could be real trouble for you or your users.

It's a subject that comes up often in developer circles (even outside of CF). The good news is that there's a very simple solution in the available validate="submitonce" option of CFINPUT, which as of CF7 can be used for submit buttons. You'd use CFINPUT TYPE="submit" VALIDATE="submitonce" NAME="somename", as demonstrated in a complete code example below.

In this entry, I offer more info on the feature. I've not found too many other resources discussing it, so I hope this will help folks. There are some interesting challenges you should understand as well.

Problem already solved for you in Firefox--but do all your users use it?

For instance, if you've read about the feature and tried it on Firefox, you may have been surprised that you couldn't see what it did differently than a normal submit button. That's because it turns out Firefox already solves the problem itself, by preventing double-submission of a given form. It doesn't hurt to use the CF-based feature on FF. It just isn't needed. But you certainly still need the CF-based feature, though, if you may have users visiting your site with other browsers. (I can confirm that even IE 7 does not prevent double form submissions. Haven't tested Safari yet. Any takers want to report in the comments?)

Demonstrating the problem of multiple form submissions

It's not too difficult to demonstrate the problem of multiple form submissions. All you need is a means to track how many times the server-side form processing takes place for a given form's submission(s). In your real application, again, this may lead to multiple inserts in a database or multiple charges to a customer's credit card. To keep things simple, I'll demonstrate it using a session variable that's incremented on each form submission.

But then more important (to demonstrate the effect), we need the form processing to simulate "taking too long" so that a series of rapid submissions of a form will be able to be sent before the processing of the page "completes". We can do that in CF6+ by calling the Java thread sleep method, or in CF8 we can use the new sleep built-in function.

The example code is offered at the bottom here. Before you take a look at that, or try it out, note a few things.

Applies to form, not submit button

Besides the point above about Firefox being immune automatically to the multiple form submission problem, note that this multiple submission protection is enabled on the form itself, not on the submit button, so it does apply just as readily to forms submitted by pressing enter (when permitted by the browser) as by forms submitted by pressing the submit button.

The fact that it's enabled for the entire form (when the CFINPUT above is used) means also that you can't test this by having a "regular" submit button and a "protected" one in the same form. Again, it's not the submit button that gets the protection, but the form in which the CFINPUT type="submit" appears. You'll notice, therefore, that my demo code above uses 2 forms. (It's not at all important whether I use or don't use CFFORM in the "unprotected" form example. It just makes no difference.)

Does require use of CFFORM And Javascript

That makes a point though: the CFINPUT tag does indeed need to be used within a CFFORM tag, as shown in the second form. And further the feature is indeed relying on Javascript (generated by CF) to perform the multiple submit prevention. Neither should be a showstopper for most. You don't need to convert any other HTML tags within a form to their CFML CFFORM equivalents (like CFSELECT or CFTEXTAREA) just to enable the CFINPUT for form submission.

Some may want to point out that you don't need to use this particular approach to solve the problem: there are other Javascript-based approaches, as well as some that assert to work without JS. I'll leave it to commenters to mention them here, if interested.

My goal was to demonstrate the submitonce functionality, since it's not been discussed much. Do let me know if this was interesting to you.

Some final observations about my code example

I've provided comments in my code example code, about things that aren't related to the multiple submissions feature, but which may raise questions for some.

First, note that because I'm using sessions to demonstrate the feature, I've just gone ahead and put the CFAPPLICATION tag right into this template, so it doesn't matter where you put the code (won't be helped or hurt by an existing application.cfm or application.cfc, with respect to the session var created.)

As for the forms, note that I'm using self-posting forms. It doesn't matter if you do or don't for this multiple submission prevention feature to work.

And note that I don't use any means to force a filename into the form ACTION attribute, to make it post back to itself. If you leave the action empty, that makes the form self-posting. This is a legitimate HTML-specified use, if not widely known. No need to force the current file into it using #cgi.script_name# or the like.

And I determine if the form is submitted using a test for cgi.request_method being "post", which it will be on a form submission (versus it being a "get" when the page is first loaded). I don't use a test for whether the submit button is defined (a technique that is taught by some but will fail when the page is run on IE, if the user presses enter rather than the submit button, at least when there's only a single input field). Again, these choices have NO effect on the validity of the tests.

Finally, while I don't *need* to specify the empty action or post method on a CFFORM (since they're the default), I do it to avoid any confusion from those looking at the code and not familiar with that

The example code

You should be able to drop this code, verbatim, into any CFML page in any CF7 or 8 server to see the effect.

<cfapplication sessionmanagement="Yes" name="submitoncedemo">
<cfparam name="session.submitted" default="0">
<cfset interval=2>

<h4>Demonstration of New submitonce validation in CF7+</h4>

Try clicking each of the submit buttons below multiple times, in rapid succession, before the page returns from its #interval# second delay. Wait for that delay before noticing the count indicated after the 2nd form.
<p>
Notice how the "uncontrolled submit" will cause execution of multiple submissions (as tracked by a session variable). (The problem is not apparent in Firefox 1.5 and above, as it includes its own feature to prevent multiple form submissions. Try it on IE, though, even IE 7.)

<form name="test" action="" method="post">
<input type="Submit" value="Uncontrolled Submit">
<input type="button" onclick="location.href='<cfoutput>#cgi.script_name#</cfoutput>'" value="Reset Counter">
</form>
<!--- the use of no value for ACTION, to do a self-post of the form to itself, is legitimate HTML-specified functionality, if not widely known. No need to force the current file into it using #cgi.script_name# or the like. --->

<hr>
The "controlled submit" will not. Regardless of how many times you press it, it will only register a single increment in the session count, demonstrating that CF prevented the form processing from being executed more than once until the form processing page was completed.

<!--- This needs to be in a separate form from above, because the submitonce validation applies to the form, not the button. And while I don't *need* to specify the empty action or post method on a CFFORM (since they're the default), I do it to avoid any confusion from those looking at the code and not familair with that. --->
<cfform name="test2" action="" method="POST">
<cfinput type="Submit" validate="submitonce" name="submit" value="Controlled Submit">
<input type="button" onclick="location.href='<cfoutput>#cgi.script_name#</cfoutput>'" value="Reset Counter">
</cfform>

<cfif cgi.request_method is "get">
   <!--- if the form is requested the first time, or via the HREF below, reset the session variable. --->
   <cfset session.submitted=0>
<cfelseif cgi.request_method is "post">
   <!--- if the form is submitted, process it. (There are other ways to test form submissions, but this is a very good one for many reasons.) --->
   <!--- put thread to sleep for the number of seconds indicated above, to simulate a wait while form submission is being processed --->
   <cfset thread = createObject("java", "java.lang.Thread")>
   <cfset thread.sleep(javaCast("long", 1000*interval))>
   <!--- in CF8, could use sleep function:    <cfset sleep(interval)> --->

   <!--- yes, perhaps we should lock the sesion variable below, but it's not critical to help or hurt this demo--->
   <cfset session.submitted=session.submitted+1>
</cfif>

<cfoutput>
Submitted: #session.submitted# times.

<hr size="3" color="##000000">

<h4>Discussion</h4>
The form above has 2 submit buttons to demonstrate the new SubmitOnce validation in CF7+.
<p>
The first button, "Uncontrolled Submit", is a normal submit button (<input type="submit">).
<p>
The second button, "Controlled Submit", uses (<cfinput type="submit" validate="submitonce" name="somename">) which causes CF to prevent it being clicked twice to cause submission of a single form.
<p>
To demonstrate the effect, the action processing of this form is set to wait #interval# seconds before completing. It also outputs (using a session variable) how many times the button led to submission of a request to the form processing portion of the page.
<p>
Note that clicking the uncontrolled submit multiple times in rapid succession (on other than Firefox--haven't tested on Safari) will lead to multiple submissions. Even though you don't see the output of each submission (because each new submission starts a new request to the server), the increase in the session variable at a rate higher than just one per the #interval# second interval it takes for the form to complete. This demonstrates that multiple submissions are being caused.
<p>
Do the same with the "controlled submit" button, and that doesn't happen. It only ever increases by one per 3 second period.
<p>
</cfoutput>

Look ma, I'm on the radio again (my CFWeekly interview is now up)

Note: This blog post is from 2008. Some content may be outdated--though not necessarily. Same with links and subsequent comments from myself or others. Corrections are welcome, in the comments. And I may revise the content as necessary.
I had the distinct pleasure of being interviewed for the second time on the ColdFusion weekly podcast (last time in Oct '06). Some may know that Matt and Peter are starting to do interviews of speakers presenting at the upcoming cf.Objective() conference, and I happened to be the first in the lineup. The interview is up as this week's podcast.

In the 45 minute talk, we discuss both talks I'll be doing at the conference, first "Hidden Gems in the CF8 Monitor" and then "Step Debugging in CF 6/7/8". The first is a condensation of my 4-part series of articles in the Adobe DevCenter, where I highlight the most compelling tips, tricks, and traps I found. I think many will be surprised by them, and in the interview I share several from the talk.

Matt also asked me about how it compares to FusionReactor and SeeFusion, and I shared my thoughts for why there's a place for all, and along those lines (of how competing things fit together), he also asked me my thoughts on the open sourcing of BD/J2EE.

Of course, one of the things I clarified was that I left New Atlanta nearly 2 years ago (next week). Many seem not to have gotten that memo! But I explain more, including why I'm not so sure it will light the world on fire as a "free CFML engine" though it may well help a lot of people, so check out the discussion if you're interested in that topic.

I also shared some news that I've never blogged about nor spoken much about: the fact that when the roles of CF Product Manager (when Tim stepped down 2 years ago) and CF Evangelist (when Ben knew a few months ago that he was moving up to lead all the Evangelists in Adobe) first became available, I had the distinct honor of having been asked first (so I was told) if I wanted those roles. It's hard for that not to sound self-aggrandizing, which is why I've not mentioned it publicly, but I mentioned it in the interview to make the point to listeners that I really am all about CF now, and that plenty of folks at Adobe did realize I was still very much a CF community guy all along.

Anyway, I explained that I didn't take the roles simply because in the first case, the product manager role, it would have involved relocation to Boston (love Atlanta's weather too much, plus I was enrolled in an Atlanta-based seminary at the time). In the second case, Ben's role, it would have been awesome, but we all know it involves a LOT of travel. My wife and I just didn't want to be apart so much and so often (and again there are those seminary studies). It was tough to say no, but as I mentioned in the interview, of course Adobe got great folks for the roles ultimately, in Jason and Adam, respectively.

The interview concluded with my discussion of the Step Debugging talk I'll give at cf.o. I explained how it will cover both the CF8 Debugger (useful only on CF8) and FusionDebug (which can run on 6, 7, and 8). I explained (as I have many times) how though they're both based on Eclipse, that needn't be a show-stopper.

I explained how FusionDebug even offers an installer that bundles Eclipse, CFEclipse, and FusionDebug all at once, which is a great help for those challenged to install it (though it's also available as an add-in). I noted that the CF8 debugger is available only as an add-in, which can be a challenge to some, but I pointed out (as I have previously) that my 25-page chapter on the CF8 debugger, in the CFWACK, is available online. That should really help those who've been challenged to get started with the CF8 debugger. Anyway, I'll explain a lot more about using the debugger, and when/why/how one should, in the talk at the conference.

So, though I didn't plan it, I guess this interview was as much a show about how I'm not any one company's guy. :-) Whether it's supporting the CF8 monitor or FusionReactor/SeeFusion, the CF8 debugger or FusionDebug, CF or the other CFML engines, or even the consulting I do (done mostly on my own, but also some for Intergral and for Universal Mind, as I mentioned), I'm out here just trying to help where I can, whoever I can, however I can. :-) I just want to share info or tools and let folks make their own decisions. (In that regard, be sure also to check out my list of 400+ tools/resources for CFers and the CF Meetup that I run.)

Anyway, it took only a few minutes for you to read this entry. I think you'll enjoy the full 45 minute version in the podcast, which you can just click here to listen to the MP3 (no need to have an Ipod!).

8 Adobe AIR Apps that DON'T Suck

Note: This blog post is from 2008. Some content may be outdated--though not necessarily. Same with links and subsequent comments from myself or others. Corrections are welcome, in the comments. And I may revise the content as necessary.
Looking for some demonstrations of effective use of AIR? Check out 8 Adobe AIR Apps that DON'T Suck. Sure, it's got the oft-mentioned Ebay one, but lots more, including ones for Google Analytics, Pownce, Twitter, and Digg, that you may have missed.

Of course, many of those same examples (and more, though not all) are offered at the Adobe AIR showcase page. Still, the showcase is just a handful of highlighted examples and some, such as the WebKut page clipping tool and the XDrive app aren't listed. You can instead find those and dozens more at the AIR Marketplace. Curiously, a few of the makeuseof linked examples aren't even listed in the the Marketplace site, including the Google Analytics (still in beta), Pownce, Twhirl, or Digg ones, to name a few. (That may be old news to avid AIR fans, but I thought I'd point it out for those on the periphery.)

Given that, and for those who don't look at the Showcase or Marketplace pages regularly anyway, I thought this blog entry worth highlighting. In any case, It's nice to see outsiders picking up the baton in the AIR race.

BTW, I'm a huge fan of the site it's posted at, makeuseof.com, as they offer really valuable resource links on a wide range of tech topics every day.

Doh! Wrong title and speaker for today's meetup: it's John Mason on "Testing with CFCUnit"

Note: This blog post is from 2008. Some content may be outdated--though not necessarily. Same with links and subsequent comments from myself or others. Corrections are welcome, in the comments. And I may revise the content as necessary.
So sorry folks, I made a copy/paste error. The meeting today (in 20 minutes) is not Joshua Cyr (that was months ago) but instead:

"Testing with cfcUnit", with John Mason

The info in the message was write. The blog title was all that was wrong. Again, the URL for info is:

http://coldfusion.meetup.com/17/calendar/7356180/

Yet another way to keep up on the CF news of the week

Note: This blog post is from 2008. Some content may be outdated--though not necessarily. Same with links and subsequent comments from myself or others. Corrections are welcome, in the comments. And I may revise the content as necessary.
Thank you, Steve Bryant, for your CF_Blogpicks for the week, a series of weekly blog entries he started on Jan 7, highlighting what he feels are newsworthy blog entries that all CF developers ought to consider.

Last week I praised and highlighted Kay Smoljak's week in ColdFusion blog entries. Then last night I was perusing FullAsAGoog and noticed for the first time one of Steve's entries. What a delight to find that.(It's funny to note that he started his about the same time Kay did hers--funny how that goes.)

I recommend you keep an eye on Steve's list, too. He strives to pick 5 key entries a week that he feels most developers will benefit learning from. (I'm delighted to see he picked one of my entries this week, but really it's totally coincidental that I tripped across it this week while perusing the 'goog.)

Do we really need yet another source? I say yes

Now, some may say, "why do we need these additional resources? Aren't aggregators like the 'goog, MXNA, FeedSquirrel, and ColdFusionBloggers, all one needs? And what about the dzone cf page?"

Sure, those are all great. But here's the thing: Steve's been doing his news for a few weeks, and this is the first I'd seen it (same with Kay's last week). I'm sure many of us miss things that come through the aggregators. Most of us don't have time to read EVERY message they show--and then, which aggregator do you pick? While they mostly show the same things, with different approaches, some blogs aren't in all.

Most of all, I have to admit that I don't even have time to keep an eye on even any one aggregator each day, or really even each week. There's just too much content being created for most of us to stay on top of it all.

That's why I LOVE these attempts to do that hard work for us. Like I said last week of Kay's, and earlier this week about the various CF podcasts past and present (and future?), any sort of manual effort to gather and present key news and info shared is really a tough job, and my hats off to all who try.

I have some approaches in mind myself. One of them is similar to the dzone approach, and feedquirrel's recent addition to let the community of readers vote on entries. Those are both steps in the direction I was headed, though my idea is still different. We'll see. But until then, I want to make sure people know about these various features.

"Using the CF8 Debugger", my 25-page CFWACK chapter is available online

Note: This blog post is from 2008. Some content may be outdated--though not necessarily. Same with links and subsequent comments from myself or others. Corrections are welcome, in the comments. And I may revise the content as necessary.
Have you started using the CF 8 debugger? Either way, you may have noticed that the documentation on it is rather sparse. Fortunately, there's a relatively new and substantial (25-page) resource that's available online in the form of a PDF.

In the ColdFusion 8 Web Application Construction Kit Volume 2: Application Development, I had the honor of doing the chapter on the CF8 debugger. If I do say so myself, I think that it's a really complete introduction both to installing, configuring, and using the debugger, along with many tips, tricks, and traps--perhaps even a better one-stop resource than the docs themselves.

Best of all, it's one of the chapters that's been made available online. There was fear that Volume 2 would be too big and so a few chapters (mostly on older topics) were put into a 550 page PDF. My chapter is near the back of this PDF.

Also, note that if you have the print version of the book, it's technically chapter 52 of volume 2, but you won't see these online chapters listed in its table of contents. Instead, they appear in the TOC at the start of vol 3 (long story)

Sadly, I couldn't get permission to just cut out this one chapter, so you do need to get the full PDF. You should be able to easily jump to the starting page (using Ctrl-Shift-n), which is page 467 in the PDF, despite the table of contents on the first page which lists it at 471. And of course, you can print just selected pages from a PDF as well.

Either way, I hope you get great value out of the information offered. I'd really welcome your feedback.

(PS I mentioned last week that I'd also done an article on the CF8 debugger in the FusionAuthority Quarterly Update, in their recent CF8 Special Edition. Unfortunately, the FAQU articles are not available online.)

More Entries

Copyright ©2025 Charlie Arehart
Carehart Logo
BlogCFC was created by Raymond Camden. This blog is running version 5.005.
(Want to validate the HTML in this page?)

Managed Hosting Services provided by
Managed Dedicated Hosting