Me too. I'm a little disappointed with MX and XML, but still grateful it has been added. I'm disappointed in the lack of interface to the node object, no properties or methods exposed, although I've only played with it for the last 2 days without much documentation, so I may not have stumbled over it yet.
Thanks - Tom -----Original Message----- From: John Farrar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2002 7:36 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [cf-xml] ColdFusion MX and XML 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 -----------------------+ cf-xml mailing list http://torchbox.com/xml/list.cfm
