Sure,

You offering to donate a server to a worthy cause?

;-)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Russ Michaels [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
> Sent: 13 August 2002 01:20
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [ cf-dev ] Evaluate is bad WAS RE: [ cf-dev ] 
> Looping over fo rm - syntax?
> 
> 
> Well Spike I know you like testing... Go and test this for me 
> for a couple of months and tell me how it turns out :-)
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Spike [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: 13 August 2002 00:07
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: RE: [ cf-dev ] Evaluate is bad WAS RE: [ cf-dev ] 
> > Looping over fo rm - syntax?
> > 
> > 
> > I think that depends on what you mean by safe.
> > 
> > If you mean safe in terms of not getting hacked then the
> > basic rule is the fewer processes you have running, the 
> > better your chances are, but other than that it's pretty hard 
> > to say quanititatively.
> > 
> > If you mean safe in terms of the apps from CF5 not
> > interfering with CFMX and vice versa then I don't think you 
> > can really say for sure. I suppose it depends on the apps 
> > themselves. If you have apps that talk to a lot of 3rd party 
> > systems and do a lot of filesystem type access you could well 
> > run into problems, but exactly what those problems would be 
> > is anyone's guess.
> > 
> > Ultimately I think it depends on how critical the application
> > is, and how expensive it will be if anything goes wrong.
> > 
> > Why do you ask?
> > 
> > Spike
> > 
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Russ Michaels [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > > Sent: 13 August 2002 00:58
> > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Subject: RE: [ cf-dev ] Evaluate is bad WAS RE: [ cf-dev ]
> > > Looping over fo rm - syntax?
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On a similar topic.
> > > How safe do you reckon it would be to permanently run CFMx
> > (on its own
> > > webserver) and CF5 together on a server.
> > > 
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Spike [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > > > Sent: 12 August 2002 20:39
> > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > Subject: RE: [ cf-dev ] Evaluate is bad WAS RE: [ 
> cf-dev ] Looping 
> > > > over fo rm - syntax?
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > I heard Jeremy allaire mentioning that it could be 
> done, but that
> > > > you'd have to pay a CFMX license for each CD you distributed. I 
> > > > think that was off the record though, so the official 
> > word might be
> > > > different. It might be possible to distribute your apps using an
> > > > eval version of CFMX. Again, you'd need to check with 
> > someone at MM
> > > > about that.
> > > > 
> > > > Spike
> > > > 
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Taz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > > > > Sent: 12 August 2002 21:33
> > > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > Subject: Re: [ cf-dev ] Evaluate is bad WAS RE: [
> > cf-dev ] Looping
> > > > > over fo rm - syntax?
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > > You can do that with CFMX too.
> > > > > 
> > > > > I was thinking about that recently, since MX is java and
> > > has its own
> > > > > web server, it makes sense really. Question is.. has
> > > anyone done it
> > > > > yet? I really ought to pay more attention to
> > > > Guru etc.
> > > > > 
> > > > > > Do you have any idea if you would have to pay a per CD
> > > license for
> > > > > BlueDragon?
> > > > > 
> > > > > No idea. You'd have to ask them.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Don't suppose anyone knows what MMs view on it is? (Lucas?) 
> > > > > Personally, I can't see it being a problem... possibly
> > > the opposite
> > > > > since its just going to increase the use and awareness of the 
> > > > > ColdFusion language. The more well known it is the 
> better. Plus 
> > > > > people are always going to buy MM CFMX for the bigger 
> projects 
> > > > > anyway, mainly because its Macromedia, but also 
> because of the 
> > > > > extra functionality (Verity, flash integration), also more 
> > > > > developers will buy studio, MM certification, etc.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Maybe I'm just talking arse!
> > > > > Taz
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > --
> > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: 
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > For additional commands, e-mail:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > For human help, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > --
> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: 
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> > > > For human help, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > --
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > For additional commands, e-mail:
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] For human help, e-mail: 
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > --
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > For additional commands, e-mail: 
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] For human help, e-mail: 
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> -- 
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: 
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] For human help, e-mail: 
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> 
> 



-- 
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For human help, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Reply via email to