Show #194 - Hipsters, Scraping and Relationships

Apple , ColdFusion , ORM Add comments

In this show Dave and Scott discuss the new iPhone features, an effective way of dealing with child / parent relationships in ORM, and why the woodland creatures are disappearing at an alarming rate. Yup, for real. Kind of.


Show Link:




A little bit about our sponsor. Host Media is, among other things, a ColdFusion hosting provider. Click the link below for an exclusive discount for CFHour listeners using the discount code 'cfhour'

Host Media


Show Topic Links:


No Password necessary

iPhone Fingerprint Scanner


validORM from Brian Swartzfager

CfQuickdocs.. broken by...?

Using CF UI.. nooooooo!


Buy Stuff

7 responses to “Show #194 - Hipsters, Scraping and Relationships”

  1. Carl Von Stetten Says:
    In fairness to the Twitter discussion and Adam Cameron's blog entry, the discussion on licensing was largely related to an idea Adam came up with. He wanted to do a one-time scrape of the docs for the several versions, and then host that copy of the docs elsewhere. This would require permissive licensing of the docs. The idea being that if Adobe restructured the docs, it wouldn't affect a doc site built on that static copy.

    FWIW, I agree with you guys that Adobe can't be blamed for breaking 3rd party applications if those applications are scraping Adobe content.

    Great show!
  2. Billy Cravens Says:
    You can't life fingerprint off of sensor to somehow get into the phone; the sensor uses RF to look at living cells underneath outer layer of dead skin cells (so you can't even chop off someone's finger for phone access):
  3. Adam Cameron Says:
    G'day chaps
    Hey, I realise my headline was perhaps slightly inflammatory, but that was just a hook to get people to go "WTF is he on about now?" as are a lot of my "headlines". If you actually *read* what I say about "blame" it was just a reaction to what Ray said, and I wasn't really making too much of a thing out of blaming Adobe for anything.

    Ray said "not Adobe's fault that it happened", and my point was that [action X] happened. This impacted [thing Y]. [action X] was due to an action on the part of [entity Z]. That being the case, the way that [thing Y] was impacted by [action X] is the fault of [entity Z], because [Entity Z]'s action caused the problem. Something happened due to Adobe's actions: it's their fault. I didn't suggest they did it wittingly or maliciously, but they *did* do something that caused other people problems.

    I did not mean they should not do what they did. I did not mean that relying on the stability of a third party system that makes no promises about stability is not foolhardy. I was speaking more philosophically than anything else.

    And *all* I said on the topic was "Ray's response [...] is a bit unhelpfully dismissive here". Going to to qualify that I thought that was unusual. Isaid this because he was simply saying "well you shouldn't do that", but the unfortunate truth is there's no other choice *but* to do it that way given the options available. So simply saying ppl shouldn't do it is... *unhelpful*. I'm sure if there were other options, then the ppl would have taken them. For the very reasons Ray cited.

    What I might have expected from Adobe was a "oh shit! Sorry about that :-S didn't realise you were doing that [etc]".

    Also you seemed to focus a bit too much on what you're inferring I meant (which given the way you reacted, was pretty much a misreading of what I did actually write), without really focusing on what I'd prefer you to have picked up on which is a suggested project to get all the docs onto neutral ground and offer it as an API for all and sundry to use / maintain. Which I thought was a good result to come from all this? Maybe not. A couple of people have been keen about it anyhow.

    Still: no harm done. Good podcast all round.

  4. Scott Stroz Says:
    Billy - You may not be able to lift fingerprint off the sensor, but I bet you could lift one off of any other part of the phone :D

    Adam - Sorry, I have to continue to disagree. Adobe is not at fault for the issues with all. If my neighbor taps into my WiFi for his home network that hosts his personal web site and I change the password or access point name, does that mean it is my fault that his web site goes down?
  5. Adam Cameron Says:
    Is it your fault? Yes it is. *Should you receive blame*? No. I think that's where we're having a disconnect here.

    Your analogy would be more sound if it was like this:
    Scott: Here's some internet for you to use over my wifi, the password is password is 5c0t7Bl0w5G0@7s
    Neighbour: [hosts site via that internet connection... not exactly what you were meaning when you offered the internet]
    [Time passes]
    Scott: [forgets all about the neighbour. Changes password]
    Neighbour: [sad face]

    It is your prerogative to change your password. Fair dos that you forgot that someone else might be using the internet. So is it your fault the other person had an outage? Yes. So? Bad luck for the other person. But I don't think they'd be blaming you for anything.

    But, anyway... me blaming Adobe for anything, rightly or wrongly, was 4% of that blog post. Suggesting I disagree with Ray in that it's NOT Adobe's fault: another 4%.

    Like I said: not really the thrust of what I was talking about in it. I've spent more time talking about it *in this comment* than I did originally.


    PS: I realise that's probably not your password ;-)
  6. Scott Stroz Says:
    In my analogy, I did not mean to imply that I had willfully given my neighbor the password, rather, that he was using my WiFi without my knowledge - just as these 3rd party solutions were likely using the CF docs without Adobe's knowledge.

    It is not Adobe's fault these sites stopped working, it is the developer's fault for implementing a process that was flawed.
  7. Andy Says:
    I think the issue (one of them anyways...) is that the word "fault" has a negative connotation in that some people are inferring some sort of purposeful or willful disregard for the action.

    A more suitable term may be "causal" in that "Adobe's action of changing the URL scheme were the cause of Site XYZ to stop working properly." etc. Causality without blame of negligence... a semantic distinction, but that's what you guys are really going on about anyways...

    All irrelevant - and silly - once you read Jake Munson's comment on Adam's orig post that the real issue had nothing to do with Adobe's site changes but with his new service provider!

Leave a Reply

Leave this field empty:

Powered by Mango Blog. Design and Icons by N.Design Studio