hehe ... I agree - makes MM's release of CFMX seem flawless. -----Original Message----- From: Stacy Young [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2002 12:27 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: The Myth of Bugs (Was Huge Ungainly thread of Doom)
For the love of god please do not even mention anything about a PeopleSoft upgrade!!! Lol Fat clients, crappy schema's and butchered code base...upgrades take days and most often never work....not to mention we had to hire a full timer just to baby sit and make minor modifications...on top of a yearly support plan. PeopleSoft = absolute crap. Sorry...OT but I really don't like them. :-) Stace -----Original Message----- From: Mark A. Kruger - CFG [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2002 12:42 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: The Myth of Bugs (Was Huge Ungainly thread of Doom) Jesse, --- you wrote --- >So you're blaming the move to Java for your application(s) not working? What if he had simply rewritten the code base in C++? What would you blame then? First ... who's been leaking that you my applications aren't working <g>. Second, I'm not "blaming the move to Java" - merely stating what is now a widely accepted point of view that moving from C++ to Java as a code base, changing the underlying architecture, moving to JDBC, greatly enhancing the feature set, introducing flash remoting, cfcs, Java tag libraries, etc, etc, etc, was BIG change - not an incremental one. In fact, I'm not blaming anyone. I think MM has done a fine job all things considering and the amount of compatibility between the old platform and the new is quite amazing. As I stated, I believe that 80% of applications will work quite well ported from CF 5 to CFMX. I think is unrealistic to NOT expect these problems. Did you ever go through a peoplesoft upgrade? Macola? How about SQL 6.5 to 7.0? These were all VERY challenging upgrade paths - and NONE of them moved to an entirely different language and platform for the code base. I'm not decrying the "lack of backward compatibility" - I'm simply trying to be realistic. How many of us really thought that all our pet COM objects would be supported? I was amazed they got COM to work at all <ha>. -mk ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| 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
