Sean, I'm sorry. Re-reading you message I don't see any irony. Sorry my english sometimes traps me.
Abra�os! Alex > ---------- Mensagem original ----------- > > De : "Alex Hubner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Para : CF-Talk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc : > Data : Fri, 26 Jul 2002 20:06:52 -0300 > Assunto : Re: It's official: CFMX is 10% faster than CF5 > > > ---------- 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 exist in > 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 en co > dings > > are so on. For the first time, you can actually write a CF app tha t > 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 C FM > X. Did > > people criticize the introduction of UDFs in CF5 as making CFML mo re > > > 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 difficultie s > 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 happ y > 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 tes t > 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, bu t > 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 cod e" > ) > > > > Of course that depends on who you ask :) > > Sure. > > []'s > Alex > > ______________________________________________________________________ Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com 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
