> But those versions were effectively interpreters, not compilers and the > debugging mechanism was built into the interpreter.
Ah yes, that would be the difference. And it sounds like > people complained that it never really worked very well? Well, when it worked, it worked great. But most of the time it would just crash the server. :) > > With CFMX, you could - in theory - use regular Java debuggers but you > would not have the mapping from the CFML source code available as it > stands today. Adding debugging machinery is quite a complex > undertaking... Come on, you need something for CF6.5, right? :) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com
