Dick-
Simple put, this is not "painting ourselves" into a corner. For the most part,
there are reasons WHY we don't want you to upgrade to the latest bleeding edge version
of X (minus apache).
To put it simply: "upgrading" to the latest version of Axis would require a
full gambit of internal regression tests, etc. This means that every time axis
released a .rev we'd have to run full-blown compatibility tests.
It's as if I want to support every .rev of glibc, etc for an end-user system.
That's why we package that version of the software, and that's why our supported
platforms/java versions are quite specific.
If you want to take advantage of the latest bleeding edge development tree,
I'd say go for it, however, we are not in the "bleeding edge .rev" market. We're
supposed to give you, the consumer, a stable, affordable product where we can say "we
can reasonably support this".
If we spend all of our time testing dev trees for 3rd party components then we
don't get to do that. There'd be a new CFMX patch out every day if CVS doesn't lie.
As for Apache: Apache 2.0 is a unique beast. They keep changing magic
numbers/etc, which breaks module compatibility. The issues with the Apache module are
already known. The issues are being worked on.
Jesse Noller
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Macromedia Server Development
Unix/Linux "special guy"
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dick Applebaum [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, August 12, 2002 6:11 PM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: [SOT] Is MM painting itself into a corner?
>
> There have been several threads about upgrading CFMX to work with the
> latest:
>
> Apache server
>
> Axis
>
> Java
>
> and there are probably some other 3-rd party products that CFMX
> interfaces/depends upon
>
> From what I gather from reading these threads, the "common problem" with
> upgrading to the latest version of these products is that the interface
> to them is proprietary Macromedia code?
>
> If this is true, will we be forever behind on upgrades of these 3-rd
> party products until MacroMedia can update its proprietary interface
> code an then combine this with other CFMX maintenance releases?
>
> If so, this sounds like a very poor environment to deploy production web
> sites.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Dick
>
>
______________________________________________________________________
Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in
ColdFusion and related topics. http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.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
