Then you are simply using the JDBC to ODBC bridge. CFMX requires the use of JDBC.
Matt Liotta President & CEO Montara Software, Inc. http://www.montarasoftware.com/ 888-408-0900 x901 > -----Original Message----- > From: Dave Wilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 11:34 AM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: RE: LONG time CF Supporter - About ready to dump CF! > > Just a wee note on the JDBC problem. > > In case some of you may have missed it in amongst the other info in my > earlier posts. I've opted to use the odbc sockets instead for MS SQL > datasources. > > I haven't been able to test properly yet, but I'm guessing it will be more > stable than the JDBC driver. So perhaps some could use this a temporary > fix > until the JDBC driver problems have been ironed out? > > Dave > > -----Original Message----- > From: Mark A. Kruger - CFG [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: 08 October 2002 16:33 > To: CF-Talk > Subject: RE: LONG time CF Supporter - About ready to dump CF! > > > Jesse, > > Pardon me for asking but... how does MM handle a situation where something > worked correctly on CF 5, but now is failing on CFMX? Is that CFMX? Or > do > I pay to have MM tell me I need to re-write code? This "connection reset > by peer" JDBC socket error that's been troubling us (notice I did not say > "bugging" :) could well be the result of some server setting or SQL config > option we have overlooked that ODBC/CF 5 ignores, but JDBC looks for. If > that turns out to be the case, would MM charge for that? > > -mk > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jesse Noller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 10:05 AM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: RE: LONG time CF Supporter - About ready to dump CF! > > > > Jesse, what Lee is trying to say is that MM should help him with the > > problem, without him having to pay extra for tech support. > > He is *not* paying if the problem is with CFMX! > > Not. Paying. > > > > > I had a problem getting CFMX to run on my development system - the > > services wouldn't start when my system booted, MM wanted to charge me > > for tech support, and it wasn't until I posted to this list finding > > others with the same problem. They helped me and fixed the problem. > > > > I know Lee personally and he is one of the biggest CF supporters. Lee > > has helped me patiently through many CF problems, and to hear he's > > having these problems with MM is very discouraging. > > But you're *not* paying if the bug is with CFMX and not your code! > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Jesse Noller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 7:05 AM > > To: CF-Talk > > Subject: RE: LONG time CF Supporter - About ready to dump CF! > > > > > > Lee- > > > > While I can understand your predicament, and I will pass this > > issue around to other I know of, I fail to see the rationale here. > > > > Software, by it's very nature (programmed by humans, who are > > fallible) tends to have some bugs and problems. > > > > There is a large group of people who run CFMX without issues and > > the only people who scream on the mailing lists and the forums are those > > with issues, therefore, if you took a daily snapshot of it all, you > > could very well think that the software, CFMX, is crap. > > > > However, look at the support forums for WindowsXP, Apache, IIS, > > any of them. You'll see the same thing. > > > > The fact is, no software is fool-proof. I was in CFQA and > > Development helping to work on CFMX, I know we ran this puppy through > > every little test you could think of. > > > > Does this mean the software is bulletproof? No. > > > > So, now you have some software you buy, and you have a problem. > > Do you send operating systems back when you run into an issue? Do you > > take a car back and ask for a refund if you find out a window is acting > > funny? > > > > No, you go and get the issue resolved. My issue is that we > > cannot work on issues we cannot recreate in house. Let me give you a > > typical thread: > > > > User: CFMX suckxx! > > Someone else: What are you seeing? > > User: Stuff! > > Someone else: OoooKay... What sort of stuff > > User: Stuff that makes the server crash! > > > > While Matt just sent a message decrying public communication > > between those of us at Macromedia and the community, how can we possibly > > work on bugs and issues that are reduced to "stuff is broken". > > > > I can't recreate "stuff is broken". I can recreate "If I run > > Code X the server crashes under this OS, version and patch level". > > > > Our primary method of recreating and debugging issues is an > > escalation through technical support. That's why they are there. > > > > Technical support is the first line, they get the ducks in a row > > to allow development and QA to create a fully functional test case in > > house so that we can actually FIND the problem. > > > > Going through support also assures that the problem will be > > fixed within a reasonable amount of time. > > > > Are we working on fixing bugs? Yes. Could we have missed you > > bug? Yes. Are we working on recreating some of the problem pointed out > > on the mailing lists and forums? Yes. > > > > How are supposed to communicate that? How can we publically say > > "We are working on a bug from the forums that 50 users are seeing" it's > > a matter of "firestorms" if 1 user sees it, it's a fact of life that > > unless it is properly escalated (through support), it may not be looked > > at for some time, however, if 50 users say "yeah, we see X under Y > > conditions" it will more than likely be fixed more quickly. > > > > Sorry for the pseudo rant, but there seems to be a misconception > > on the reason why technical support is actually there, they are the > > pipeline to development, and to actually getting bugs fixed. Not the > > forums, not the Mailing lists. > > > > While many of us internally may read these mediums, and watch > > for "trends" the "smaller" issues slip through the cracks. This is a > > problem of not only manpower (as it would take an army to sort through > > the data). But also resources. That's why support it there. > > > > I highly recommend, if you are seeing an issue, to contact > > technical support, period. They are the best bet of you seeing your > > issue included in the next updater, or getting a custom patch. > > > > > > Jesse Noller > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Macromedia Server Development > > > > > -----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 Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm
