I'm not even sure why they bothered to run this.  I'm sure the situation will change once the memory leak is fixed.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Darron J. Schall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Friday, December 19, 2003 12:35 pm
Subject: Re: Flash Remoting to CF

> The article can be found by clicking around on sys-con's mxdj page
>
> magazine:http://www.sys-con.com/mx/
> article: http://www.sys-con.com/story/?storyid=37919&DE=1#RES
>
> I highly suggest getting a print copy - the results are shown as
> charts which don't seem to be viewable in the online version of
> the article.
>
> -d
>  ----- Original Message -----
>  From: Mark Leder
>  To: CF-Talk
>  Sent: Friday, December 19, 2003 2:27 PM
>  Subject: RE: Flash Remoting to CF
>
>
>  Yes, I have CFMX 6.1 installed on the production server.  I thought
>  something looked screwy.  Thanks for your advice.
>  BTW: where's this performance test results in MXDJ?  URL?
>
>  Thanks, Mark
>
>  -----Original Message-----
>  From: Darron J. Schall [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>  Sent: Friday, December 19, 2003 2:19 PM
>  To: CF-Talk
>  Subject: Re: Flash Remoting to CF
>
>  If you're running ColdFusion MX or greater, you already have the
> capability  to do remoting - it's built in to the server.  
> Macromedia sells a .NET
>  version, and that is where the cost per CPU comes in.
>
>  If you need a php or java version, check out http://amfphp.org/ and
>  http://www.openamf.org
>
>  Remoting rocks over XML.  Just look at the performance test
> results in MXDJ.
>
>  -d
>
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]

Reply via email to