> > It's another thing to say that the product shouldn't have > > been released because of it. > > It might be your nature to release "BUG"/GY applications... > I Dont operate that way.
So, you're saying that if there's ANY bug at all in CFMX, it shouldn't have been released? I'd still be waiting for my bug-free copy of CF 2 then! And how about my Windows NT 3.51 fixes - I'm still waiting! It's simply not practical to expect any software package of any complexity to have no bugs at all. > > Most bugs aren't trivial to the people who run into them > > Apparently its Trivial to most developers here...If something > doesnt work.. My solution is to get it fixed... Yours might > be to improve Product Manuals and perhaps buy the User Big > Eye Glasses... not a bad Strategy!. My solution is to find the best way to solve a problem. If JDBC-ODBC doesn't work well in CFMX, but "pure" JDBC does, my solution may well be to recommend "pure" JDBC. If there's some reason that's not acceptable, then that's a different matter. But I try to keep my expectations realistic. Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ voice: (202) 797-5496 fax: (202) 797-5444 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
