Let the polls begin... I want an MX version. John Farrar
> Hi Martin > > Although I haven't done any serious testing, I've been surprised by the > decent performance of COM objects in ColdFusion MX, including the XML > Toolkit. Nevertheless, we've rewritten most of the XML functions in our > applications to use the new native XML features. > > As an example, you can download an MX version of the CF_XMLQuery tag from > > http://torchbox.com/xml > > If there's enough interest in MX versions of the other Toolkit tags we could > rewrite these. Perhaps I'll do a poll on CF/XML usage and desires... > > Tom > > -----------------+ > tom dyson > t: +44 (0)1608 811870 > m: +44 (0)7958 752657 > http://torchbox.com > > > I took the following from the CF Livedocs > > > > COM objects > > ColdFusion MX uses the Java Native Interface (JNI) to call COM objects, > > which results in slower performance than in ColdFusion 5. How much slower > > depends on the application and COM, but in the Macromedia tests of the same > > code, ColdFusion 5 completed in 50 milliseconds and ColdFusion MX completed > > in 2-3 seconds. > > > > Does anybody know if this affects the performance of the XML tollkit and > > SOXML - they both use COM don't they??? > > > > Cheers, > > > > Martin > > > > > -----------------------+ > cf-xml mailing list > http://torchbox.com/xml/list.cfm > -----------------------+ cf-xml mailing list http://torchbox.com/xml/list.cfm
