RE: JRun (Problems starting cfusion Server)
Yep, strangest thing, it puts in that "-server" option, both on windows and linux installs. You have to go track down that config file, probably jvm.config in your %installdir%\runtime\bin folder, or for J2EE it could be just in the \bin folder... well track it down, take out the -server argument, save and start 'em up. -nathan strutz -Original Message- From: Joe Eugene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2003 10:07 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: JRun (Problems starting cfusion Server) I am having problems starting "cfusion" on Win2k J2EE Configuration. This happened after i changed the classPath Setting for "cfusion" server. Here is the error. E:\JRun4\bin>JRun -start cfusion Unrecognized option: -server Could not create the Java virtual machine. Anyone know how i can resolve this? Thanks, Joe Eugene [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
RE: anyone no what i do with this?
thanks Dave! Thats a good thing too know! what would the proper cfm code be? or would that be ok? thanks! >> im trying to convert an asp site to cfm and im going through >> an xml output and i come across this code >> >> Response.Write "" >> >> not sure what the CDATA is?? >> >> what do i do with it? >> >> is it ok to just do this? >> >> >> >> >> >> or can i take it out? > > The CDATA is an XML type that allows you to tell the XML parser not to > try to parse its contents. This allows you to safely include XML > metacharacters (<,> and so on) in your data. So, you probably don't want > to take it out of the code. > > Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software > http://www.figleaf.com/ > voice: (202) 797-5496 > fax: (202) 797-5444 > > [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
JRun (Problems starting cfusion Server)
I am having problems starting "cfusion" on Win2k J2EE Configuration. This happened after i changed the classPath Setting for "cfusion" server. Here is the error. E:\JRun4\bin>JRun -start cfusion Unrecognized option: -server Could not create the Java virtual machine. Anyone know how i can resolve this? Thanks, Joe Eugene [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
RE: sweet guestbook!! but......
oops, cut all my message out, grrr
i think this is the problem
MsgList.load (_root.URLpreFix+"message.asp?page="+_root.curPage);
of course its asp, so we change it to cfm but its the =page, deal i think
thats messed up
so i output my cfm on the message.cfm page in xml which works fine
but its calling for it to be like messages.cfm?=page1
im not sure what to do the with the out put of the xml
if u want the files, i will send them to u
dave
> LOL, right on!
>
> i think i have it all but this on page that loads the xml
>
> here is original code
> ___
> var sstr="..";
> var MsgList = new XML();
> MsgList.ignoreWhite=true;
> MsgList.>
> MsgList.load (_root.URLpreFix+"message.asp?page="+_root.curPage);
> attachMovie("msgLoading","loading",1);
> loading.>
> this.text="Loading"+sstr.substr(0,random(8));
> }
>
> function xmlfunc(success){
> if (success){
> AdminLog=this.firstChild.attributes.AdminLog;//¹ÜÀíÔ±µÇ½±êʶ
> createEmptyMovieClip("msglistLayer",1);
> var theMc=eval("msglistLayer");
> iCount=this.firstChild.childNodes.length;//±¾Ò³ÁôÑÔÏÔʾÊýÄ¿
> for(var i=0;i
> theMc.attachMovie("MsgItem","msg",1);
> var theMc=eval("theMc.msg");
> theMc._y=21;
>
>
>
[Todays Threads]
[This Message]
[Subscription]
[Fast Unsubscribe]
[User Settings]
RE: sweet guestbook!! but......
LOL, right on!
i think i have it all but this on page that loads the xml
here is original code
___
var sstr="..";
var MsgList = new XML();
MsgList.ignoreWhite=true;
MsgList.>
MsgList.load (_root.URLpreFix+"message.asp?page="+_root.curPage);
attachMovie("msgLoading","loading",1);
loading.>
this.text="Loading"+sstr.substr(0,random(8));
}
function xmlfunc(success){
if (success){
AdminLog=this.firstChild.attributes.AdminLog;//¹ÜÀíÔ±µÇ½±êʶ
createEmptyMovieClip("msglistLayer",1);
var theMc=eval("msglistLayer");
iCount=this.firstChild.childNodes.length;//±¾Ò³ÁôÑÔÏÔʾÊýÄ¿
for(var i=0;i
theMc.attachMovie("MsgItem","msg",1);
var theMc=eval("theMc.msg");
theMc._y=21;
[Todays Threads]
[This Message]
[Subscription]
[Fast Unsubscribe]
[User Settings]
RE: OT - Some Catch Up on CF Migration?
Stacy Young wrote: "Honestly, you'd be crazy not to use 6.1...the speed and scalability factors alone justify the upgrade! There are some minor idiosyncrasies, as with any software...but overall I'm very happy with 6.1" I second that. I was not at all happy with 6.0 and held off the upgrade until now. There are still some issues with respect to COM but I am sure it will be rectified soon (we hope!). I would highly recommend the upgrade. Donnie Bachan Phone: (718) 217-2883 ICQ#: 28006783 "Nitendo Vinces - By Striving You Shall Conquer" [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
RE: sweet guestbook!! but......
What code, specifically, is tripping you up? Post it on up! We'll slap its ass and call it Charlie. Jim Davis -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, October 17, 2003 3:13 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: sweet guestbook!! but.. I have this amazing guestbook in flash & asp which i would like to convert to flash and coldfusion. im ok with converting most of the asp stuff but the xml is throwing me off. there are only 7 asp pages to convert with a total of 281 lines of code & this is a fabulous gb. anyone interested in helping me convert it, of course you get a great app as well. has everything there just need to change some code & only 1 page is trippin me up any takers? _ [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
RE: OT - Some Catch Up on CF Migration?
The CF market definitely is split at least as far as versions are concerned. Many larger clients (my company included) seem to be in holding pattern with CF 4.5 while most smaller shops seem to be upgrading at least to 5 if not MX. Some comments: 1) Most hosts that actually care about CF have upgraded to MX (although many still offer 5 as well). There were a LOT of hosts a few years ago that lept into CF hosting (badly) and simply never bothered supporting it properly - so they're still sitting on CF 4.5 because they bought it. But there are a lot of hosts that spend the effort and do quality CF hosting - and all of them are using modern versions. 2) A few years ago there were only a very few places to talk CF - CFTalk being the premier place. CFTalk has diversified itself (there are now more than a dozen separate groups at House of Fusion) and many other places have risen up: the official Macromedia Forums have taken a turn for the better (and are very active), alt.comp.lang.coldfusion is moderately active and there are no less than several dozen web-site specific forums enjoying active use on CF. In short the user base has grown and the number of places to talk has grown - so everything's just evening out. 3) The big reason for lukewarm acceptance of CF that I think you're missing is that both MS and Sun have been putting tremendous muscle into the exact same market space: ASP (and .NET) and JSP (and J2EE) are eating up huge chucks of market share. The fact that CF is still alive and kicking (and gaining customers) is a testament to it: in the face of these giant competitors it's actually doing rather well. In fact it's taking a "join 'em" attitude and actively supporting its competition - making it a more attractive choice to those on the fence. 4) I'm not sure how you could argue about the pricing of MX - it's comparable to CF 4.5 and significantly cheaper than most enterprise application servers. It's also the most complete solution out of the box by far - all told it's a steal. 5) For my part MX offers a huge truckload of "what we need". From the advocacy side the simple fact that it's certified J2EE makes selling it easier. From the technical side this opens up tremendous flexibility (CF supports more extension standards than any other option hands down). >From a language standpoint CFCs, while still somewhat immature (but improve greatly in 6.1) are fantastic as are the improvements to UDFs (CFML-based functions answer pretty much all the complaints about UDFs in 5.0). There are also countless less obvious improvements in the language (thread-safe shared scopes being one of my favorites). Lastly if performance is an issue then MX is a huge boon: the performance enhancement is so great in some applications that you may be able to extend hardware life significantly simply by upgrading from 4.5 or 5 to MX 6.1. Jim Davis -Original Message- From: Nick Baker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2003 10:32 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: OT - Some Catch Up on CF Migration? I have been distracted from spending much time keeping up with CF within the last couple of years. We upgraded to 5.0 and then I disappeared. I now find myself with a huge void in knowledge of releases beyond 5.0. (Actually a void of just how productive, i.e., functionality versus problems, 5.0 is) Furthermore, it appears that a sizeable number of hosting services remained at 4.5.1. Assuming that hosting services are driven by their customers desires, this makes a good case that a lot of developers didn't see enough value in anything beyond 4.5.1 to push for the later versions/releases. One other observation is that CFTALK seems to be less active than it used to be. That could be for several reasons, including that 1. 4.5.1 is a more mature and sound product now, eliminating a lot of potential problems/questions. 2. If the users are in fact staying with 4.5.1 then those same users are more experience and naturally have few questions. 3. Fewer people are starting to use CF? I know that those, whose business depends on selling new versions/releases, have to pitch improvements and advantages. But, it would appear the market place is at best luke warm to recent and current CF Migration. I assuming that the reasons are: 1. To many problems? 2. Benefits gained with newer products couldn't justify the prices? 3. Or, possible something I am missing? My own observation, as shallow as it may be, is that the MX really doesn't offer much of what we need, and the price is too high. But, I don't know what I don't know. That is why I am asking. Anyone care to comment? Thanks, Nick _ [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
RE: OT - Some Catch Up on CF Migration?
Honestly, you'd be crazy not to use 6.1...the speed and scalability factors alone justify the upgrade! There are some minor idiosyncrasies, as with any software...but overall I'm very happy with 6.1 Stace _ From: Brook Davies [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: October 19, 2003 10:46 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: OT - Some Catch Up on CF Migration? I think the difference between 4.5.1 is HUGE, the advantages are HUGE: 1. Speed and Stability of the Server (although early versions of MX were not!) 2. Compiled vs Interpreted pages 3. XML integration 4. Web Service Integration 5. Flash Remoting 6. CFC's are awesome 7. UDF's are a huge advantage over 4.5.1 also I guess there is lots and lots of other stuff, but for me those are the key's. Brook _ [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
Re: OT - Some Catch Up on CF Migration?
I think the difference between 4.5.1 is HUGE, the advantages are HUGE: 1. Speed and Stability of the Server (although early versions of MX were not!) 2. Compiled vs Interpreted pages 3. XML integration 4. Web Service Integration 5. Flash Remoting 6. CFC's are awesome 7. UDF's are a huge advantage over 4.5.1 also I guess there is lots and lots of other stuff, but for me those are the key's. Brook [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
Storing a COM object in the application scope?
I have a COM object that is called often. Would I run into problems if I stored it in the application scope? Would I need to lock calls to it? Brook [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
OT - Some Catch Up on CF Migration?
I have been distracted from spending much time keeping up with CF within the last couple of years. We upgraded to 5.0 and then I disappeared. I now find myself with a huge void in knowledge of releases beyond 5.0. (Actually a void of just how productive, i.e., functionality versus problems, 5.0 is) Furthermore, it appears that a sizeable number of hosting services remained at 4.5.1. Assuming that hosting services are driven by their customers desires, this makes a good case that a lot of developers didn't see enough value in anything beyond 4.5.1 to push for the later versions/releases. One other observation is that CFTALK seems to be less active than it used to be. That could be for several reasons, including that 1. 4.5.1 is a more mature and sound product now, eliminating a lot of potential problems/questions. 2. If the users are in fact staying with 4.5.1 then those same users are more experience and naturally have few questions. 3. Fewer people are starting to use CF? I know that those, whose business depends on selling new versions/releases, have to pitch improvements and advantages. But, it would appear the market place is at best luke warm to recent and current CF Migration. I assuming that the reasons are: 1. To many problems? 2. Benefits gained with newer products couldn't justify the prices? 3. Or, possible something I am missing? My own observation, as shallow as it may be, is that the MX really doesn't offer much of what we need, and the price is too high. But, I don't know what I don't know. That is why I am asking. Anyone care to comment? Thanks, Nick [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
RE: anyone no what i do with this?
> im trying to convert an asp site to cfm and im going through > an xml output and i come across this code > > Response.Write "" > > not sure what the CDATA is?? > > what do i do with it? > > is it ok to just do this? > > > > > > or can i take it out? The CDATA is an XML type that allows you to tell the XML parser not to try to parse its contents. This allows you to safely include XML metacharacters (<,> and so on) in your data. So, you probably don't want to take it out of the code. Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ voice: (202) 797-5496 fax: (202) 797-5444 [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
