lol. I see you've gotten so worked up, you're just babbling now. Ah well. You could always try using PHP. Or maybe ASP. Heck, I hear ODBC is still quite usable if you write code in C.
Sometimes I wish Sun never made those damned type II JDBC drivers. Look what they did to poor Joe. Sorry Joe, don't mean to pick on ya. But it's pretty funny :) >There is NO point made here...unless u want you brief. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Joe Eugene" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2003 12:59 AM Subject: RE: The New Macromedia Website(ODBC) > > Every complex software product I've ever seen has numerous bugs. > > You might want to take a look at some of the *.jar files.. and see > how complex cfmx is... > > > No, I don't have any theories, just observations. If there are two ways to > > do something, and one works better than the other, I'll recommend the one > > that works. > > How do you OR i know...what works... unless you spent a few un-productive > hours > testing for what works? If i spend alot of time reseaching work-arounds to > a vendors software... > What value is that vendors software to me?.. where is ROI? > > Joe > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Dave Watts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2003 12:21 AM > > To: CF-Talk > > Subject: RE: The New Macromedia Website(ODBC) > > > > > > > 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) > > > > Every complex software product I've ever seen has numerous bugs. I'm not > > sure why you'd expect CFMX to be any different. > > > > > > 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. > > > > No, I don't have any theories, just observations. If there are two ways to > > do something, and one works better than the other, I'll recommend the one > > that works. If I need COM interoperability, I might not recommend a CFMX > > solution. For that matter, I might not recommend CF 5 for that, > > either. But > > I'm not going to wait for perfection from any vendor. > > > > 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 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 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
