> So, you're saying that if there's ANY bug at all in CFMX, it > shouldn't have > been released
I am NOT saying "ANY".. software is not perfect!. We are not talking about one specific issue... CFMX has had numerous issues... (Check Updater Docs... if you want to start counting them) > 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. Yes.. JDBC is a Solution/Alternative.. Not a fix to the software(cfmx) BUG. Example...CFMX had COM Issues...am not sure where it stands now... Any COM functionality can be replicated very well through a Java Bean.. So in your theory...Instead of MM fixing COM issues... you probably will ask all your developers to re-write every COM in a Java Bean? You have really have interesting theories. Joe Eugene > -----Original Message----- > From: Dave Watts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 6:11 PM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: RE: The New Macromedia Website(ODBC) > > > > > 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 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 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
