There is nothing careless about that error. Think about all of the mistakes
that were made that led up to me seeing that error.
There is no error handling routines. Not only should the error not have
happened, I should not have seen the full path and sql statement. These are
the people who designed the entire program. These are the people who write
the best practices white papers...
As of right now, their ftp servers are down so it is impossible to download
the demo also.
jon
----- Original Message -----
From: "Phoeun Pha" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2001 2:22 PM
Subject: RE: CF vs. iHTML
> I'm sure it was a careless mistake
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jon Hall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2001 12:48 PM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: RE: CF vs. iHTML
>
>
> Where is the wddx xml implementation? I didn't see one. I did see tons of
> typos on their homepage.
>
> Here is an example from their FAQ:
> I can't seem to get the product working.
>
> Solution
> Please make sure of the following:
> 1. Make sure you hear a beep on server startup. If not then the DLL is not
> loading.
> LOL
>
> Where are the client, application and session variables? I did try and
> download the documentation for iHTML, but unfortunately recieved this
error
> when trying.
>
> Error Number = 1944
> Error Message = Bad Recipient Specified
> Error Details = Error Code : 1944
> C:\data\clients\ihtml\download\dl-insert-doc.htm
> iMAIL ADDRESS='[EMAIL PROTECTED]' FROM="[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
> SUBJECT="myiHTML user account"
>
> SQL Error:
> SQL Statement: SELECT email FROM support.dbo.users WHERE id = 27375
>
> I cant trust a company that does not even know how to use their own
> products.
>
> jon
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jaye Morris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2001 8:00 AM
> Subject: Re: CF-Talk-list V1 #145 - CF vs. iHTML
>
>
> > ------Nathan Wrote---------
> > Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 07:51:44 -0600
> > From: Nathan Stanford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: RE: Cold Fusion vs. Ihtml
> > Message-ID: <31D979D84265D311B5E700105A29944C50DF87@NTEXCHANGE>
> >
> > Can you get the people who swear that CF is inferior to tell you what is
> bad
> > about CF and what is good about ihtml?
> >
> > Kind of a Pros and Cons
> >
> > then we can tell you what is accurate and what is not accurate.
> >
> > ----------Jaye Writes-------------
> >
> > What the guys are saying in the shop are this:
> >
> > 1. Ihtml is faster than cold fusion, because it runs as a DLL on the
> > server.
> >
> > 2. Ihtml's logic base is better and they find CF idosyncratic.
> >
> > 3. Supposedly Ihtml's back page processing is qualitativly better
than
> > CF.
> >
> > 4. And lastly their position is that Ihtml does everthing and more
than
> > cold fusion, therefore why should we change.
> >
> > I was only able to find reference material about CF vs ASP. but not CF
> Vs.
> > Ihtml. Therefore I was hoping somebody did some benchmarking, and have
> > objective information. Please save me from Ihtml hell.
> >
> >
> > Jaye Morris
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > www.jayezero.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
> > Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at
http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
