On Friday, July 26, 2002, at 04:06 , Alex Hubner wrote: > 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.
Yes, I realize that some people are having some problems with some specific language features but I also hear lots of people who have nothing to complain about who are running their old apps on CFMX without a problem. Think about it: who is going to post on a list? The people who aren't happy with CFMX! I don't think seeing posts from (many) happy people, saying "Hey, it works for me!", is going to improve anyone's humor in this area :) Now, I'm not saying there are *no* problems - I can see them here just fine (and on the other lists I'm on). I'm saying that there are relatively few problems (especially considering this is effectively a 'new' product). > People are not running CF5 applications 'just the > same' under CFMX, and they are complaining about - this thread is > about - it. *some* people are complaining (loudly) about a *few* problems. I don't want to belittle the problems people are having - for those people, these are show-stopping problems. Been there, done that. Not fun. I'm just trying to get a little perspective on the discussion. > 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>... And when people migrated from 4.5 to 5.0 they didn't have this problem? What about all the changes in that release? EVERY upgrade is going to cause *some* problems - that's the nature of software. Let's look at setEncoding() - for the most part, applications that run on CF5 today rely on the default encoding and should run without setEncoding( ) on CFMX. Now, it may be that a CF5 application was relying on 'features' in the default encoding handling in CF5 that are now exposed by the upgrade to CFMX and full Unicode support. Yes, that's very unfortunate but would you rather CFMX was performance-hobbled (and / or feature-hobbled) to reproduce that erroneous behavior? > 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. I'm glad you're happy overall. I think you are in the majority. Hopefully we can all work together to create a good repository of information where people upgrading from CF5 can go to quickly resolve those few problems that they may encounter. > 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. It was a genuine question so I'm glad you're answering it... > I've tested two Fusebox applications that runs smoothly on CF5, I > ...[snip]... > 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. OK, that's good to know - and unfortunate for the Fusebox community I suspect. Out of curiosity, were you running with Trusted Cache enabled? I also wonder how much memory was on the server - I've heard a few people express concern about the amount of memory Java takes (although I personally haven't experienced any problems). Sean A Corfield -- http://www.corfield.org/blog/ "If you're not annoying somebody, you're not really alive." -- Margaret Atwood ______________________________________________________________________ This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for dependable ColdFusion Hosting. 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
