I'm jumping in to this thread late, but to me this sounds just like the problems we were having until we got *all* of our locking straight (CF5 and earlier). I found that turning on the lock-checking/reporting in the admin screen was enough to highlight all of the little places where locking was not done correctly. If you haven't turned this on then you have people working without a net... it is asking for trouble in pre CFMX. (In our case, we only had to enable this setting on a development box, but if the code on the server is not under your control then I don't think you have that option.)
Having documented coding best practices and *telling* people that locking is an issue is one thing, but having the system itself verify correctness is much, much better. If the people whose code is running think they are locking correctly then they should have no problem with you turning it on. When CF aborts a page because of missing locking they will have no choice but to admit to the problem and deal with it; meanwhile, that server will most likely remain stable for everyone else. BTW, turning this on doesn't cost any money at all. -----Original Message----- From: Lee Fuller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 9:48 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: LONG time CF Supporter - About ready to dump CF! Yes. But that's really not the point. I know you're just a "messenger" Jesse.. So I'm not trying to slay you. But understand that many of us who support CF had to go to our superiors and convince them to spend quite a bit of cash to support CF in the firt place. Then, after convincing them that it's a good thing, they're now seeing their investment turn into more expense for man-hours, customers jumping ship because of the lack of stability, customers simply blowing off CF because it's become (and I'm quoting at least three clients here) "...too bloated to hassle with any more.", etc, etc. Now I'm being asked to go back these same people, who are now SERIOUSLY questioning why they allowed us to talk them into spending money on this beast, and ask them to allow me to use the company credit card to (even potentially) pay for a problem that would simply go away with a quick flick of a mouse button over an "uninstall" file? I'm being told that they are thinking about simply sending back the software and asking for a refund. Now, color me silly but that doesn't sound like people who will support my asking for a credit card to secure ANYTHING but maybe the freight to ship the discs, manual and box back to Macromedia. Again.. Don't get me wrong. I'm a HUGE fan of the CF technology.. TRULY! We've been CF supporters since 1.0. That's why this all seems so sad and frustrating. We've watched CF go from "no brainer -- fantastic technology!" to "OH MY GOD.. IT'S DOWN **AGAIN**?? WHY????!!! And they want MORE MONEY TO FIX IT???!!!" So you can see, it's a bit of a bad position I'm in. | -----Original Message----- | From: Jesse Noller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] | Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 6:38 AM | To: CF-Talk | Subject: RE: LONG time CF Supporter - About ready to dump CF! | | | They asked for a credit card number to secure an amount | unless it is a bug in CFMX, correct? | | Jesse Noller | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Macromedia Server Development | | > -----Original Message----- | > From: Lee Fuller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] | > Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 9:36 AM | > To: CF-Talk | > Subject: RE: LONG time CF Supporter - About ready to dump CF! | > | > Yup... And (per my post) they've asked for support $ to | figure it out. | > | > | I'm assuming you've made your problems known to Macromedia? | > | > | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists&body=lists/cf_talk FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm
