pieces. I think I am going to focus on CFMX. Has anyone had any problems
with CFMX 6.1 and com objects? I had tons of problems with CFMX with
updater 3, wanted to know if these are fixed in the newest update, which
I do have, but have not tested that on the new update.
Robert Bailey
Cameron Childress wrote on 10/29/2003, 8:42 AM:
> MX is really a completely different beast than prior versions of
> CF. As you
> say, there are lots of new features, but there are also differences in
> date
> handling and lots of other things, not to mention some likely changes in
> coding style and "best practices".
>
> If you build your product to 4.5 or 5.0 specs you are likely going to
> eventually have to recode significant parts of it at some time in the
> future
> if you want to truly take advantage of any of the new benefits of
> CFMX. I'm
> not talking about compatibility here, because you can write a program
> compatible with 4.5 through 6.1 pretty easily. It more a matter of
> knowing
> that sooner or later, you're going to very likely want to completely
> rewrite
> it to take advantage of CFMX's new features.
>
> And CFMX is common in production - though there will be companies you
come
> across who don't have it yet, and may not for a long time.
>
> -Cameron
>
> -----------------
> Cameron Childress
> Sumo Consulting Inc.
> ---
> cell: 678-637-5072
> aim: cameroncf
> email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.sumoc.com
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert Bailey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 8:16 AM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: RE: How common is MX in production?
>
> Yes, I could see many benefits with the use of CFC's, MX security,
> login, etc... I was thinking of creating web services so that one may
> access the application without going through the web interface and
> allowing for other applications to use the data and functions. This is
> not a need but more of a desire. But I do not want to push out any
> potential customers that may not have upgrade to MX. Maybe I should
> steer clear of the MX functions?
>
> Robert Bailey
>
> Simon Horwith wrote on 10/29/2003, 8:09 AM:
>
> > would the implementation of your application solely for CF MX result in
> > significant benefits over a version compatible with a prior version of
> > ColdFusion?
> >
> > ~Simon
> >
> > Simon Horwith
> > CTO, Etrilogy Ltd.
> > Member of Team Macromedia
> > Macromedia Certified Instructor
> > Certified Advanced ColdFusion MX Developer
> > Certified Flash MX Developer
> > CFDJList - List Administrator
> > http://www.how2cf.com/
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Robert Bailey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: 29 October 2003 12:17
> > To: CF-Community
> > Subject: How common is MX in production?
> >
> > So I am thinking of creating a little app for distribution and I am
> > leaning to the use of CFMX for development, but how common is CFMX
> when
> > it comes to production? Would I be better off making sure it is
> > compatible with 4.5 and up? Any help would be greatly appreciated.
> >
> > Thanks!
> > Robert Bailey
> >
> >
>
>
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
