Re: [ACFUG Discuss] JVM version and ColdFusion

2008-02-07 Thread Forrest C. Gilmore
Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Forrest C. Gilmore Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2008 4:51 PM To: discussion@acfug.org Subject: Re: [ACFUG Discuss] JVM version and ColdFusion Thanks for all of your suggestions. In light of Steve's response, perhaps I should

RE: [ACFUG Discuss] JVM version and ColdFusion

2008-02-04 Thread Charlie Arehart
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Forrest C. Gilmore Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2008 4:51 PM To: discussion@acfug.org Subject: Re: [ACFUG Discuss] JVM version and ColdFusion Thanks for all of your suggestions. In light of Steve's response

Re: [ACFUG Discuss] JVM version and ColdFusion

2008-02-03 Thread Darin Kohles
John Mason, or Charlie Arehart can probably help you out with this one, but from my understanding - leave CF talking with the JRE it comes with for maximum compatability. Or Steve Drucker for that matter ;) On Feb 2, 2008 3:36 AM, Forrest C. Gilmore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I want to install

Re: [ACFUG Discuss] JVM version and ColdFusion

2008-02-03 Thread Andrew Powell
I believe that you should run CFX tags within the same JRE, with the same classpath as CF. I think CFX tags need access to certain interfaces within the CF packages to function properly, though I've not looked at the API in a while. ap On Feb 3, 2008, at 3:16 PM, Darin Kohles wrote:

Re: [ACFUG Discuss] JVM version and ColdFusion

2008-02-03 Thread Forrest C. Gilmore
Thanks for all of your suggestions. In light of Steve's response, perhaps I should abandon this CFX_Google endeavor! A number of years ago, with talk about fourth generation languages, I had hoped that all this needless(?) complexity would eventually go away, and we could just get work done