I had a problem with ours that I resolved. I will tell you how it is arranged and what I did. You can decide it is similar to your problem.
We had an absolute path in cf5 that went to another drive letter and path for our file. In MX it uses relative paths only. It also has to be inside of the webroot directory. Ours was not. To solve this I created an physical directory in the webroot with the same name as the folder where my file existed. I then created a "dummy" file with the same name as the one I wanted to use and inside this "dummy" file I placed a <CFINCLUDE> of the actual file. Because it was relative, inside the webroot and could run cf code, it worked just fine. I had tried using virtual directories and spent several days trying to get it to work being as creative as I could. This was the only way I could actually get it to run. I could have just placed the actual files there, I know, but I keep my files elsewhere and wanted to keep it that way. This approach allows me to do that. Good Luck. Mike -----Original Message----- From: Brook Davies [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, July 26, 2002 1:16 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: site wide missing template handler not working in MX Yeah, I tried that. Has anyone got this working? Can someone running CFMX confirm that this is a bug please? Or just me.. At 02:44 PM 26/07/02 -0300, you wrote: >AFAIK, this path in MX is now relative to the web root directory. Did you >try this? > >Regards, >Marcello Frutig. >-- Astrolábio > > >Has ANYBODY been able to get the site wide error handler templates to work > >in CFMX? Everytime I try to add one in the admin it tells me the path is > >wrong. I've tried every combination of path variations under the sun. I've > >also seen a thread in the mm forums where other people are having the same > >problem with no answer yet. > > > > > > > >At 11:29 AM 26/07/02 -0300, you wrote: > >>Jesse and folks, we don't experience the same when dealing with > >>ASP/PHP/Perl and even JSP (afaik). Ok, this natural on any programming > >>language such as pure Java, C++ and so on, but I don't agree that such > >>behaviour is natural and expected in server-side scripts/languages such > >>as CF and ASP. Maybe MM could go forward on this and provide something > >>to perform the compilation faster or/and do it on the time we save a > >>cfm template. > >> > >>I have a friend that says the following about CFMX: it seens that CFMX > >>takes a long turn (gets more time and server resources) to get back to > >>the same place we can start (or just walk a little bit) with JPS. I > >>think this is a crap (CFML is easy, rapid and lovely) but the point is: > >>are the price for the "Java World" too high for merely mortals that just > >>want to do little things with CF (which is the perfect server-side > >>architeture for that)? > >> > >>Abraços! > >>Alex. > >> > >> > >>-----Original Message----- > >>From: Jesse Noller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > >>Sent: 26/07/2002 9:44 AM > >>To: CF-Talk > >>Subject: RE: It's official: CFMX is 10% faster than CF5 > >> > >> > >>/takes off tinfoil hat > >> > >>Uh, just to throw this in, compilation of code is something you deal > >>with almost any programming language. C, C++, Java, etc. It's a bit of a > >>movement of a literal line by line read, but overall, it does increase > >>the speed of the end result. > >> > >>Saying "that's Java" is incorrect. "That's Programming" would be more > >>apt. > >> > >>Jesse Noller > >>[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>Macromedia Server Development > >>Unix/Linux "special guy" > >> > >> > -----Original Message----- > >> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > >> > Sent: Friday, July 26, 2002 8:39 AM > >> > To: CF-Talk > >> > Subject: Re: It's official: CFMX is 10% faster than CF5 > >> > > >> > Yea it is a pain in the ass to have it compile the first time but > >> > thats java for you what do you expect ;) > >> > > >> > See java has its bad points. :P > >> > > >> > Bill Wheatley > >> > Senior Database Developer > >> > Macromedia Certified Advanced Coldfusion Developer > >> > EDIETS.COM > >> > 954.360.9022 X159 > >> > ICQ 417645 > >> > ----- Original Message ----- > >> > From: "Alex Hubner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> > To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> > Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2002 4:31 PM > >> > Subject: It's official: CFMX is 10% faster than CF5 > >> > > >> > > >> > > CFMX Performance Brief: CFMX is "only" 10% faster than CF5 under > >> > > Win2k > >> > > boxes: > >> > > > >>http://www.macromedia.com/software/coldfusion/whitepapers/pdf/cfmx_perfo > >> > > rmance_brief.pdf > >> > > > >> > > Well, almost everybody knows it in it's day-by-day tests/usages... > >> > > > >> > > I disagree with the tests. CFMX is not 10% faster than CF5... It > >> > > looks that MM doesn't take in consideration the time (very long, > >> > > specially on templates that calls lots of includes, such as fusebox > >> > > ones), to the just-in-time compiler finish it's job (which takes > >> > > 100% of my CPU)... I've told once and I'm gonna say it again: it's a > >> > >> > > pain in the ass wait CFMX compiles my templates everytime I modify > >> > > it. In a production environment this is acceptable but in a > >> > > development environment is realy bad! It becames painless if you use > >> > >> > > 1Gb processors or faster but... Well, does anybody has the same > >> > > complain? > >> > > > >> > > []'s > >> > > Alex > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> > > > ______________________________________________________________________ Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in ColdFusion and related topics. http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.cfm FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
