responses inline --- Barney Boisvert, Senior Development Engineer AudienceCentral [EMAIL PROTECTED] voice : 360.756.8080 x12 fax : 360.647.5351
www.audiencecentral.com > -----Original Message----- > From: Clark Baker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: None > To: CF-Talk > Subject: CF 5.0 vs. MX > > > I've been searching for days now and found bits and pieces of > comparisons on > specific issues and found a few reviews by reporters. Some say MX is > horrible, some say MX is much better, but I'm interested to find out what > "real" CFMX users who have been using it for a while think. We're > trying to > decide whether or not to upgrade to MX. Do it. Especially with RedSky coming out. > - Has anyone gone back to 5.0 after using MX? I haven't. We upgraded from CF4.5 to CFMX and didn't have any issues. Ran the code analyzer, changed a couple of residual parameterExists() calls to isDefined(), and did the switch. Completely painless. > - How much of a pain is it to have the pages compile everytime you update > them? Initially annoying in development, but it's not that big a deal. You get used to it. I'd acutally say it's a benefit to some degree, because you start thinking through your changes, rather than the guess-refresh-guess-refresh cycle that you can get into with the faster initial page loads. > - what are the best improvements in MX? tag-based UDFs, and CFCs are the big ones. CFCs are nice, but they require a fundemental shift in development style, which isn't for everyone. tab-based UDFs, on the other hand, are totally accessible to anyone familiar with CF5 UDFs. They are even more powerful, because you can use ALL languages constructs, not just CFSCRIPT. > - what are the shortcomings of MX, if any? There are some fundemental problems with CFCs. However, many of those are fixed with the RedSky release sometime this summer. Check out Raymond Camden's site for more info. He has a presentation or two that were specifically cleared for release, even though the info is restricted by the NDA. Also, the hype about CFLOCK and how CFMX does locking for you was horrible. CFLOCK is still needed to preserve data integrity. On CF5 and below, it was needed to preserve data integrity, and prevent memory corruption. Only the latter is taken care of my CFMX automatically, so you still need to lock. Installation is also supposedly somewhat quirky, although I haven't really had any problems with it. > - how does the performance compare? Traffic load? DB queries? Page loads? I don't have any formal numbers for you. It's noticably faster than CF4.5 though, even under light load. > - stability issues? I haven't had any problems with it crashing or dying, although I know there have been people with the opposite experience. > If anyone has any feedback on any or all of these topics that would be > great. The more feedback the better. Or if anyone knows of an existing > discussion on this topic please let me know! > > Thanks, > Clark > RebatePlace.com - Find rebates. Compare prices. Save money. > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for dependable ColdFusion Hosting. http://www.cfhosting.com Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
