Hi there,
Just wanted to add my 2c to this issue - We recently installed a version of
cfmx on a completely clean server - the server itself runs fine but the
amount of trouble we have had trying to get our previous applications to run
under CFMX is mind boggling. I am sure that CFMX is as good
At 08:48 AM 10/9/2002 -0400, you wrote:
CFMX, as has been stated before, was the *most* tested version of
ColdFusion *ever* put on market, I can't make this clear enough.
I might argue this point.
I believe I once heard Ben Forta say ( Or read an e-mail he typed ) that
CF5 was
Simon-
This is another gripe of mine. The issue is that we tested backwards
compatibility extensively, almost exhaustively.
What *specific* issues did you run into? Were you running Fusebox? Was your
application using improper coding methodologies, what were the *specific*
I might argue this point.
I believe I once heard Ben Forta say ( Or read an e-mail he typed ) that
CF5 was built off of CF4.5 .
That makes sense and is expected and is not a surprise. But, that would
leave me to believe all the beta testing and experimentation and real
world
use
Jesse,
Whilst I agree with your general point that there's possibly a
misintepretation of doom and gloom for CFMX within the recent threads, I'd
like to also point out that from what I can see, the developers highlighting
the problems are actually seeking help from Macromedia in order to
Quoting Simon Whittaker [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Just wanted to add my 2c to this issue - We recently installed a
version of cfmx on a completely clean server - the server itself runs
fine but the amount of trouble we have had trying to get our previous
applications to run under CFMX is mind
At 09:10 AM 10/9/2002 -0400, you wrote:
Simon-
This is another gripe of mine. The issue is that we tested
backwards compatibility extensively, almost exhaustively.
What *specific* issues did you run into? Were you running Fusebox?
: chuckle: I found this funny. Asking
Well said Jesse.
The funny thing is that most of the people complaining during those threads
have problems with JDBC, which is not directly related to MM/CFMX (but more
to third party JDBC drivers or M$ implementation)...
SQL Server 7 is getting very old right now (and it's a M$ product), so I
Wednesday, October 9, 2002, 8:48:24 AM, you wrote:
JN All-
JN Funny, I should stop sleeping. I wanted to take a moment to address something that
is bothering me a great deal.
Hey, don't forget, people are passionate about CF, and that's a good
thing.
Every CF developer has had to basically
Jesse,
ok - now you got my dander up a little ;)
This is another gripe of mine. The issue is that we tested backwards
compatibility extensively, almost exhaustively.
What *specific* issues did you run into? Were you running Fusebox? Was
your application using improper coding
Whilst I agree with your general point that there's possibly a
misintepretation of doom and gloom for CFMX within the recent threads,
I'd
like to also point out that from what I can see, the developers
highlighting
the problems are actually seeking help from Macromedia in order to
continue
Threads like the one yesterday, if you go back and read them,
degenerated
into a series of throw it out the door and I won't be buying it
etc,
etc, etc.
It seems like most of the people participating in the thread had already
bought CFMX and were just having problems with it.
People need
What improper coding methodologies? Are you saying there's a secret
standards book out there that MM has written and that everyone must
follow
to be sure that things are backward compatible? Did no one check to see if
Fusebox would work on CFMX? CF supports a variety of coding
It seems like most of the people participating in the thread had already
bought CFMX and were just having problems with it.
Re-read it, more people jumped in, and it's not just yesterday's thread.
I don't think it is really fair to put Macromedia's PR problems from
yesterday on the
I've just been monitoring the thread, but from what I've read earlier,
this and maybe other CF-lists and other software lists might be worth
assigning
someone to, to monitor and respond to as their day job.
Public relations and perception can make or break a company
these days and it seems to
-Original Message-
From: Jesse Noller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2002 10:42 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: The Myth of Bugs (Was Huge Ungainly thread of Doom)
Let me add that I'm a CFMX believer. All the CF projects we are doing
going forward are on CFMX. We
Jesse,
--- you wrote ---
So you're blaming the move to Java for your application(s) not working?
What if he had simply rewritten the code base in C++? What would you blame
then?
First ... who's been leaking that you my applications aren't working g.
Second, I'm not blaming the move to Java -
On Wednesday, Oct 9, 2002, at 08:41 US/Pacific, Jesse Noller wrote:
So, say you use something like, (lets pick on something easy) fusebox.
Fusebox
Let me jump in before people start flaming Jesse for picking on
Fusebox...
is a methodology for programming your CF application. Now, say you
How can we catch on when they do not contact us via the proper manner?
It seems participation in the community would do it.
The way we have it now may not be the proper way in your eyes, but
as
that is the *currently supported method* it doesn't leave any room for
argument, now does it?
Saying that x sucks is fine, but it does not change x.
Nor does it make x work any better than it does now. I think that
might have been his point.
The lesson MM should learn from yesterday isn't that anyone thinks CFMX
is poop. MM needs to take a hard look at its support system, bug
That person is Vernon, basically. He's the CF community manager for MM. Of
course, there are others from MM on the list that do monitor and answer
questions such as Sean, but when the internal responsibility comes around,
Vernon's the guy.
And personally, I think he's doing a great job.
I've
On Wednesday, Oct 9, 2002, at 09:28 US/Pacific, Rick Faircloth wrote:
I've just been monitoring the thread, but from what I've read earlier,
this and maybe other CF-lists and other software lists might be worth
assigning someone to, to monitor and respond to as their day job.
Like a Community
For the love of god please do not even mention anything about a PeopleSoft
upgrade!!! Lol
Fat clients, crappy schema's and butchered code base...upgrades take days
and most often never worknot to mention we had to hire a full timer just
to baby sit and make minor modifications...on top of a
At 12:47 PM 10/9/02 -0400, Matt Liotta wrote:
Saying that x sucks is fine, but it does not change x.
Sure it does if enough people are saying it.
Not really. If a person says that function X doesn't return the expected
value of Y when given the data Z with a server in this configuration,
-Original Message-
From: Jesse Noller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2002 10:42 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: The Myth of Bugs (Was Huge Ungainly thread of Doom)
Let me add that I'm a CFMX believer. All the CF projects we are doing
going forward are on
Isn't that what I said Sean? ;)
Jesse Noller
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Macromedia Server Development
No concept man forms is valid unless he
integrates it without contradiction into the
sum of his knowledge.
- Ayn Rand
-Original Message-
From: Sean A Corfield [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
See below...
-Original Message-
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2002 12:47 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: The Myth of Bugs (Was Huge Ungainly thread of Doom)
How can we catch on when they do not contact us via the proper manner?
It seems
Great Post.. we are all supporters of CMFX and MM.. we are only want
our voices to heard by MM and communicate responsible actions taken...
Joe
- Original Message -
From: Dave Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2002 9:13 AM
Subject: RE:
Now, if I read cf-talk on $RAND day, I could safely assume that CFMX
was crippled, a lame-duck to the market. Does this assumption make
it true?
I think it is fair to assume the people on this list are professional and
they understand the implications of support issues discussed on lists like
On Wednesday, Oct 9, 2002, at 09:28 US/Pacific, Rick Faircloth wrote:
I've just been monitoring the thread, but from what I've read earlier,
this and maybe other CF-lists and other software lists might be worth
assigning someone to, to monitor and respond to as their day job.
Like a
Thanks Michael!
I was about to wave my hands and ask What am I, chopped liver?
Rick, maybe it was Jesse's comment including me when he said monitoring this list in
not our fulltime job - that was (inadvertantly) not perfectly accurate regarding my
duties, though admittedly, I do have to
Hi, Michael.
But didn't I see in Vernon's signature line that he is Public Relations?
I was just wondering if MM had a formal assignment of technical
people, like those in the technical support network, whose job it is to
work with the community on lists/forums like these?
Are there any?
If it
But we aren't talking about how a person can be more effective. We are
talking about a mob of people. Dealing with a mob is completely
different than dealing with a person. If a single person says some
feature sucks and has nothing else to back up that opinion then the
person will most likely be
I realize that technical support is most likely a profit center for
MM, but what I'm proposing is what an EMT (Emergency Medical Technician)
is to a patient. Upon first having a problem, a patient needs immediate
attention. EMT's don't arrive on your accident scene, notice you have
serious
I have to agree with Sean...
First, Jesse is a human being, just like we are. We have thoughts,
impressions, opinions, etc. Just because he happens to collect a
paycheck from MM doesn't negate these things, or make him a robot.
While I would expect him to curb his temper, on personal matters
Here.. Here!
| -Original Message-
| From: Joe Eugene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
| Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2002 11:15 AM
| To: CF-Talk
| Subject: Re: The Myth of Bugs (Was Huge Ungainly thread of Doom)
|
|
| Great Post.. we are all supporters of CMFX and MM.. we are
| only want
If people start to believe function X really does suck,
and they don't buy it and use it, ask the seller of function X
if it matters what people say...
R
-Original Message-
From: Thane Sherrington [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2002 1:32 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject:
Nah, maybe some chopped up filet mignon! ;-)
-Original Message-
From: Vernon Viehe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2002 2:32 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: The Myth of Bugs (Was Huge Ungainly thread of Doom)
Thanks Michael!
I was about to wave my hands and ask
Thanks for the clarification, Vernon.
It is helpful to know that monitoring the lists/forums is part of your
formal job.
(Perhaps you should include something to alude to that in your signature
block
for those just joining the list...so we can know who the players are?)
My suggestion concerns
Also, if one believes in something one is often passionate about it.
I think the fact that the MM guys are so passionate about their products
goes to show that they very much believe in what they are doing. Like an
artist with their painting. If they were robot like - like ... aheM (I Cant
No offense Rick, but... I don't think there's enough coders / emergency
tech response in the world to even handle something like this. Why?
Because anyone and everyone will all declare their problems as
'emergencies' and no one will RTFM.
There is a _a lot_ that the 'customers' could be
hehe ... I agree - makes MM's release of CFMX seem flawless.
-Original Message-
From: Stacy Young [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2002 12:27 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: The Myth of Bugs (Was Huge Ungainly thread of Doom)
For the love of god please do not even
That's called Gold Support.
| -Original Message-
| From: Rick Faircloth [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
| Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2002 12:10 PM
| To: CF-Talk
| Subject: RE: The Myth of Bugs (Was Huge Ungainly thread of Doom)
|
|
| I realize that technical support is most likely a
Rick Faircloth wrote:
I realize that technical support is most likely a profit center for
MM, but what I'm proposing is what an EMT (Emergency Medical Technician)
is to a patient. Upon first having a problem, a patient needs immediate
attention. EMT's don't arrive on your accident scene,
Hey Rick,
Actually, my signature says Developer Relations, not Public Relations. Public
Relations is a different group. But I often conveniently tell my friends I work in
Technical PR, so I'm not saying you're completely off-base.
But, my job goes beyond that, from voicing your expressed
Lee Fuller wrote:
I have to agree with Sean...
First, Jesse is a human being, just like we are. We have thoughts,
impressions, opinions, etc. Just because he happens to collect a
paycheck from MM doesn't negate these things, or make him a robot.
While I would expect him to curb his
LOL
| Auto-response 1936782047
~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=listsbody=lists/cf_talk
FAQ:
Sorry about the title error...
As several have pointed out, I'm sure it would require too many resources
to cover all the list/forums out there, but I wonder about technical
coverage
of the official MM forums? I visited there today and found some messages
had gone several days with no
No offense Rick, but... I don't think there's enough coders / emergency
tech response in the world to even handle something like this. Why?
Because anyone and everyone will all declare their problems as
'emergencies' and no one will RTFM.
I'm sure you're right...
Rick
-Original
49 matches
Mail list logo
