>I am not, of course, commenting on Greylock here, but I'd like to know why
>you think we have a problem w/ backward compatability? Your example,
>locking, isn't a good one. Yes, we enhanced CFLOCK in CF4.5, but we
>certainly did not break CFLOCK code for CF4.01 machines.
It did break on my machines. As I remember, it depended on the way you
implemented it. Also, if you used strict attribute validation, you got
errors on old code. I'm sure there may be some other examples there. I know
*all* the ISPs in the Netherlands didn't upgrade their 4.0 machines to 4.5
because of these compatibility issues. I couldn't get a shared 4.5 machine
until a couple of months ago. I assume a lot less boxes were sold
consequently. So, from a marketing point of view, it was completely broken
(the upgrade path). From a technical point of view: I know I had these
locking issues. I'd have to dig into it to come up with some actual
examples.
Kind regards,
Marc Schipperheyn
<theFactor.e>
Premium Partner for Macromedia
The future is technological, but it will not be a world of gray steel
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at
http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Unsubscribe visit
http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists&body=lists/spectra_talk or send a
message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with 'unsubscribe' in the body.
