> One rather major thing just came to mind which tilts the "cost"
> argument back in ASP's favor:
>
> We upgraded all our ASP servers to Win2k with no problems. All of
> the code still worked afterwards with no kludging whatsoever. It
> truly was a painless upgrade.
>
> Then we tried to upgrade our CF Server to Win2k.... First we find
> that 4.0.1 isn't supported under 2k, so there's some more money to
> Allaire for a new version just so it works on the current OS, but
> anyways....
So, you're surprised that if you upgrade the operating system to one which
didn't exist when you bought CF, it might not work on it? I'm not sure
that's a fair complaint. For what it's worth, I had 4.0.1 working on Win2K
RC1+, although that broke my ASP code! The biggest problem with CF 4.0.1 on
Win2K is that CF installs MDAC, which was an external set of components in
NT 4, but is integrated into the operating system in Win2K - meaning that
changes to MDAC in Win2K require a service pack.
Changing the underlying operating system isn't a trivial thing. There are
going to be a fair share of bad experiences when you do this. It's as simple
as that.
> We try the install and it absolutely DESTROYS our main application.
> Everything is locked properly, no code problems that any or our
> developers are aware of. Yet within minutes of rebooting the server
> with Win2k & CF4.5.1, we start getting PCode errors, random exception
> errors, etc. At one point, the CFML parser reported an error on line
> 4,598,123 or a 200 line file!!
>
> We spent hours on the phone with Allaire tech support, and their
> response was, "Sorry... We don't know what's wrong." FORTUNATELY,
> we'd broken the mirror of the two drives in that machine before we
> started & took out one of the drives as a contingency plan. We
> simply had to put the old drive in, sync the other drive back to it,
> and we were back to where we started.
>
> At what I pay myself & my staff, that couple of days MORE than made
> up for the cost difference in training, and that's to say NOTHING of
> two days worth of lost sales!
>
> (And before anyone says, "You should have tested before upgrading a
> production server..." We DID. The problems just didn't show up
> until you put a production load on it...)
You didn't load test the server then, I take it. Frankly, I can see why you
wouldn't, if a functionality test turns out OK, but you can never tell until
it's too late unless you load test.
> When you add to that the inordinate amount of time I have to spend
> kludging CF to make things like CFHTTP, CFMAIL, CFSTOREDPROC, etc.
> behave the way they're supposed to behave.... I don't care if you
> could teach CF in 30 minutes or less. I still spend more to develop
> and maintain a CF app than I do an ASP app. Am I alone on this one?
I agree that there are problems in the TCP/IP interfaces used by CF, but I
don't really have any problems with CFSTOREDPROC, which we use extensively,
and in general, the CFML tags and functions do what I'd expect them to do.
We spend less on CF application development and maintenance than we would
with equivalent ASP applications.
Nevertheless, that doesn't mean that CF is "better" than ASP. What it means
to me is that, for my purposes, CF is currently more suitable, most of the
time. This isn't going to be true for everybody, and it might not be true
for you.
Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
http://www.figleaf.com/
voice: (202) 797-5496
fax: (202) 797-5444
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
To Unsubscribe visit
http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists&body=lists/cf_talk or send a
message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with 'unsubscribe' in the body.
