While there is only one new release and one update this week, there were some potentially very significant announcements this week. First, Six Signs has announced plans, driven in part by the recent New Atlanta announcement, to open-source their asset management and CMS tool. Second, I leaked some details on new wiki software being released by Luis Majano and Mark Mandel. Third, Peter Farrell discusses the future of Mach-II and some important new features that will be coming. Lastly, Geoff Bowers discusses the fallout of FarCry's application to be included in the Google Summer of Code. All must reads in my opinion and leading to a busy week after all, if not in actual releases.

This is the first in a series of interviews I will be doing with speakers from this year's CFUnited conference. As the guinea pig...er...first interviewee, I invited my friend and ColdFusion luminary, Matt Woodward.

With the advent of ColdFusion components (CFCs) back in ColdFusion MX (i.e. version 6), object-oriented coding practices in ColdFusion became possible. Originally built by Ben Edwards and Hal Helms as Fusebox MX, Mach-II was the first object-oriented ColdFusion framework built around the Model-view-controller architecture (MVC). Currently the framework is maintained by Peter Farrell, Kurt Wiersma and Matt Woodward with commercial support from GreatBizTools, LLC and is available at mach-ii.com.

Two new projects and four updates this week. This week the open source update is coming to you from Waterford, Ireland, where, despite the endless rain I have managed to enjoy a Guinness, a Smithwick's and a superb dinner. In case you are wondering, the Guinness and Smithwick's taste the same here as across the pond, but you can't beat the atmosphere.

I am working on some internal training at my day job on using object-oriented programming best practices in ColdFusion as well as Mach-II. As part of this, I am building a sample application based upon my Objects and Composition - No Framework tutorial. This includes a number of forms that all interact to allow you to create the example "Xbox console" objects that I used in my example. Its funny when you are trying to build an application for the real-world, you often go with the solution that is expedient and works but when it is for teaching purposes, you might prefer to actually confirm that this is the (or a) "right way" to do things.

One question that I am trying to get a handle on is where is the best place to put server-side form validation. The most common place I have seen recommended by several prominent folks within the community is that validation should live within the bean. Along these lines my generator actually does generate a validate() method. Others have also looked into this topic lately. Jeff Chastain of Alagad wrote several entries on the topic earlier this year. His posts focused on a more generic server-side validation framework. Clearly there is no single answer to this question. However, I am finding the more I think about it, I don't like either of these solutions. Let me explain and then discuss where I have settled, at least for the moment.