I think a lot of people heard the backwards support feature and made an assumption about what it meant. What was obvious all along during the beta program was that CFMX is only really syntactically backward compatible; its behavior is really quite different.
Matt Liotta President & CEO Montara Software, Inc. http://www.montarasoftware.com/ 888-408-0900 x901 > -----Original Message----- > From: Lee Fuller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 12:54 PM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: RE: LONG time CF Supporter - About ready to dump CF! > > Hey Stace! > > I understand. And with this, it's most likely the same type of issue. > > One of the things, however, that sticks in my craw (as it were) was that > during the months leading up to CFMX's release, we were told OVER and > OVER again that existing code would work well in CFMX, with little, if > any, changes. I heard that bell ring in the tower more than 20 times, > that I can count on one hand. <grin> > > Yet here we are with "locking causes this", "change code to do this or > that", "fix up the code". Uhm... ? So am I to believe that the chant > was false? Telling my clients to go back and "fix" their code is like > saying.. > > "Uhm.. Sorry you can't park that car here, it's BLUE!" > "But you told me to paint it blue!?!?" > "I know, but now we're back to only RED cars. Sorry.. Go paint > it BLUE!" > > It's more than just an "inconvenience", to say the least. If I switch > back to 5, all the touting I did about CFMX's behavior and power was for > naught. And even worse, many of the CF clients may just opt for ASP, > PHP, etc., just cuz they don't believe me telling them "Well.. But don't > worry, it'll be fixed. Really!" > > > | -----Original Message----- > | From: Stacy Young [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > | Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 9:33 AM > | To: CF-Talk > | Subject: RE: LONG time CF Supporter - About ready to dump CF! > | > | > | Hi Lee, > | > | Out of 3 incidents I've opened relating to CFMX..I only got > | dinged for 1 of 'em...cause it was an environment issue on our end. > | > | Cheers, > | > | Stace > | > | -----Original Message----- > | From: Lee Fuller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > | Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 12:10 PM > | To: CF-Talk > | Subject: RE: LONG time CF Supporter - About ready to dump CF! > | > | Jesse, > | > | Yeah.. We understand that. We completely understand what > | you're saying. But you missed my last post (or maybe I just > | haven't read your response yet <grin>) that YOU may not want > | us to pay. But there are others that WOULD. And that's what > | keeps us from calling up good-ol' MM. > | > | > | | -----Original Message----- > | | From: Jesse Noller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > | | Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 8:36 AM > | | To: CF-Talk > | | Subject: RE: LONG time CF Supporter - About ready to dump CF! > | | > | | > | | I think that something is being missed. If the bug is > | | with CFMX, you do not pay. That simple, we have our reasons > | | for asking for a credit card number, but it doesn't change > | | the fact that if it a cfmx bug, you do not pay. > | | > | | Do not pay. > | | > | | I understand your gripe, trust me, as someone who has > | | to deal with the varying operating systems and software > | | packages I have to, I completely understand. > | | > | | However, reading and addressing issues on mailing lists > | | is not my day-job. I do development and other assorted > | | things. While having the time to reply to mailing list issues > | | is nice, that's not how 99% of issues get reported and resolved. > | | > | | > | | > | | Jesse Noller > | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] > | | Macromedia Server Development > | | > | | > -----Original Message----- > | | > From: Dave Wilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > | | > Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 11:21 AM > | | > To: CF-Talk > | | > Subject: RE: LONG time CF Supporter - About ready to dump CF! > | | > > | | > See Jesse, > | | > > | | > Many of us such as Lee and myself have been working with CF > | | for a long > | | > long time and we love the product, etc etc. > | | > > | | > When we run into problems, we take every step we can think > | | of to try > | | > and resolve the issue, not just for our own benefit, but for the > | | > benefit of the product itself. When persons like ourselves > | | (there are > | | > thousands of us) contact Macromedia to resolve an issue > | | it's usually > | | > in good spirit and we usually want to work *with* Macromedia in > | | > resolving the issues- y'know, kinda like being a beta > | tester. We're > | | > doing it for the product and the community as well as for our own > | | > benefit. Now being asked for a cc in this kind of > | situation is just > | | > too hard to stomach. It feels like walking along the > | | street, spotting > | | > a dangerous obstruction, attempting to move it to a safe > | place when > | | > suddenly being accosted by a police officer asking us to pay > | | > money to move such a dangerous object out of the way, or in this > | | > particular > | | > argument, provide security in case *we* do something wrong, > | | when what we > | | > are > | | > doing is helping. > | | > > | | > Just my $0.2 > | | > Dave > | | > > | | > > | | > | > | > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| 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 Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com
