> ---------- Mensagem original ----------- > > De : Sean A Corfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Well, I don't really think that's true. Compatibility with CF5 is pr etty > good (especially considering CFMX is a complete rewrite!) so existin g CF5 > continue to run just the same.
Sorry but I have a different opinion on that. The reality shows a different thing, you can check it here, on MM support forums and all over the place. People are not running CF5 applications 'just the same' under CFMX, and they are complaining about - this thread is about - it. To give you a quick example: CFOBJECT... or even a very simple thing: SetEncoding... Well, asfaik this function doesn't work with CF5 so it gives you three options: (1) your code only works for CF5; (2) your code only works with CFMX or (3) put something like that <CFIF CFVersion... EQ "5">Run this code<CFELSE>run that code</CFIF>... Which reminds me the Netscape vs. IE times. Not a great deal. > The difference is that CFMX now *allows* you to care about text enco dings > are so on. For the first time, you can actually write a CF app that really > understands locales and character set encodings and so on. I agree but, 'allowing' something means, most of the time, that you can use it IF you want, not an obligation. > > The simple stuff that worked in CF5 still works just the same in CFM X. Did > people criticize the introduction of UDFs in CF5 as making CFML more > complicated? Or did they cheer at the new functionality? Language improvements, adds and new features are totally different from chaging the entire architeture. CFMX is facing some difficulties on being aceptable by the general people (including very experienced ones) with cheers because of it. It brings a lot of new and good things (I have no doubt about it), but those things fades in the shadow when you see entire applications that runs just great in CF5 running slower and poorly under CFMX. This is not my particular case, i'm realy investing my time over CFMX and in a overall view I'm happy with it. But there are issues, you know that. > Interestingly, at last night's BACFUG we did the regular "show of ha nds, > who is using feature XYZ?" - there were more CFers working with XML than > using UDFs. > > > To start with it I can say that I'm 99% convinced that FuseBox > > applications ... runs pretty much slower under CFMX than in CF5. > > Why are you convinced of that? Just curious. Sorry, I don't like flames nor ego-treks in lists but your question sounds pretty ironic. I'm gonna answer in case I'm wrong. I've tested two Fusebox applications that runs smoothly on CF5, I usualy doesn't perform very deep tests (sometimes I use MWAST to test the server behaviour within a specif template) but in a general overview (including processing time, CPU consumption and so forth) I realize that CFMX suffer when dealings with multiple includes. Even after loading, caching, etc, the times and resources used by CF5 are smaller than those with CFMX (yes, on the same server). See, I'm talking about templates that takes, sometimes, 10-20 includes, which are not rare in Fusebox. Yes, I saw CFMX running faster than CF5, but not in this cases. This is my personal impressions and results... I have no doubt that the same applications, using CFC's is going to outerperforms the CF5 ones but, who's gonna pay me to re-write it? > > > [Fusebox] (a very high acceptable concept in "making good CF code" ) > > Of course that depends on who you ask :) Sure. []'s Alex ______________________________________________________________________ Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
