On Wednesday, Feb 26, 2003, at 11:57 US/Pacific, John Quarto-vonTivadar
wrote:
> actually in Fusebox 4 you will be able to extend the core quite easily
> using
> "plugins".
That's great news - I think that was the part of Hal's FBMX preview
that I liked best of all (I'm a big fan of "pluggable"
gevin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 26 February 2003 21:06
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: FBX3 AND CFMX
Coderutters: Discovering Fusebox 3 with ColdFusion by Hal Helms & John
Quarto-vonTivadar is excellent.
ISBN: 0972078630
-Original Message-
From: Thane Sherrington [mailto:[EMAIL PROTE
On Wednesday, Feb 26, 2003, at 13:14 US/Pacific, Michael Wilson wrote:
> Try Discovering Fusebox 3 with ColdFusion:
> http://www.techspedition.com/store/moreinfo.cfm?Product_ID=1
Or Jeff & Nat's book, reviewed in some detail here:
http://www.corfield.org/index.php?fuseaction=coldfusion.fusebook
All these are great books and I would read them in this order to get the most benefit
IMHO
"Discovering Fusebox"
"Jeff Peters and Nat Papovich book "
"Discovering CFCs"
Original Message ---
> >So it is with Fusebox. Just like with English, it can only help you to
> >learn it
> >So it is with Fusebox. Just like with English, it can only help you to
> >learn it, since it becomes just one more skill in your arsenal.
>
> Ok, I'm sold. Where can I get a good book on it?
(hmm, I'm wondering if you're joshing me or if you're really asking about a
book on Fusebox!! :) Ju
Hi,
Try Discovering Fusebox 3 with ColdFusion:
http://www.techspedition.com/store/moreinfo.cfm?Product_ID=1
Best regards,
MW
-Original Message-
From: Thane Sherrington [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ok, I'm sold. Where can I get a good book on it?
Coderutters: Discovering Fusebox 3 with ColdFusion by Hal Helms & John
Quarto-vonTivadar is excellent.
ISBN: 0972078630
-Original Message-
From: Thane Sherrington [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 3:37 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: FBX3 AND CFMX
At 02:57
On a recent large FB project we were able to add 3 non CF developers and an
experienced FB developer with little pain because those who did not know CF found the
logical framework very understandable. We rolled out the most successful Enterprise
app that company had ever experienced and I love
> Or if you're a larger shop that has a vested interest in a "secret"
> methodology -- much like the people of Florence at one time gave
> Michaelangelo's David a FigLeaf, which only serves to create interest in
> what is covered up-- then any open publically known framework, Fusebox or
> otherwis
At 02:57 PM 2/26/03 -0500, John Quarto-vonTivadar wrote:
>So it is with Fusebox. Just like with English, it can only help you to
>learn it, since it becomes just one more skill in your arsenal.
Ok, I'm sold. Where can I get a good book on it?
T
~~~
John, fabulous email, thanks.
Kind Regards - Mike Brunt
Original Message ---
> Bastardized fusebox is simply that -- bastardized fusebox. It's sort of
> saying the application is "sort of MVC" or that the database is "sort of
> backed up" -- it is or it isn't.
well that's lik
Umm fusebox will cure you cold, you didnt get the Memo?
- Original Message -
From: "John Quarto-vonTivadar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 2:57 PM
Subject: Re: FBX3 AND CFMX
> Bastardized fu
> Bastardized fusebox is simply that -- bastardized fusebox. It's sort of
> saying the application is "sort of MVC" or that the database is "sort of
> backed up" -- it is or it isn't.
well that's like CFC being "sort of" OO, now isn't it? :)
> thus there's no way to maintain and extend a single c
rvices LLC
Web Site http://www.webapper.com
Blog http://www.webapper.net
Webapper
-Original Message-
From: Sean A Corfield [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 5:31 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: CFCs's aren't that bad, was RE: FBX3 AND CFMX
On Monday, Feb 2
On Monday, Feb 24, 2003, at 18:27 US/Pacific, Mike Brunt wrote:
> So we would have something to distribute we
> finished the re write of the sample FB30 app "Taskmanager" using CFC's,
> mainly as replacements for fuses (with the exception of display fuses).
That's interesting... Hal was pursuing a
ROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 3:09 AM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: Re: FBX3 AND CFMX
>
>
> John
>
> > To answer your question, our thinking is as follows: CFCs are not ready
> for
> > the big time.
> >
> > The reasons why have been discussed
John
> To answer your question, our thinking is as follows: CFCs are not ready
for
> the big time.
>
> The reasons why have been discussed and debated for literally months by
tons
> of people on the various lists.
All the same, would you mind just giving a summary - for those of us who've
missed
1 (02) 6213 7287
-Original Message-
From: Mike Brunt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, 25 February 2003 4:45 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: FBX3 AND CFMX
I have a question for Sean, how much of MM's web site is running on CFMX
using CFCs? I imagine that is a reasonable yar
--Original Message-
From: John Quarto-vonTivadar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 7:28 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: FBX3 AND CFMX
> CFCs work just fine and can be used to build high-performance,
> scalable systems. I think it's very unfair of Hal to claim
> CFCs work just fine and can be used to build high-performance,
> scalable systems. I think it's very unfair of Hal to claim there are
> "just too many problems with CFCs" without providing more specific
> details.
Sean,
We'll be releasing FB4 pretty soon now. We chose not to base it on CFCs
{al
00 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: FBX3 AND CFMX
On Monday, Feb 24, 2003, at 17:51 US/Pacific, Barney Boisvert wrote:
> "I think that a version of Fusebox that uses CFCs as the base
> component is a
> long ways off as in months. There are just too many problems with CFCs
> for
> m
ng curve, or at least as shallow
as possible while maintaining the potential for large-scale use.
barneyb
> -Original Message-
> From: Sean A Corfield [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 6:00 PM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: Re: FBX3 AND CFMX
>
>
> On
On Monday, Feb 24, 2003, at 17:51 US/Pacific, Barney Boisvert wrote:
> "I think that a version of Fusebox that uses CFCs as the base
> component is a
> long ways off as in months. There are just too many problems with CFCs
> for
> me to suggest that people rely heavily on them, which we would be
rneyb
> -Original Message-
> From: Sean A Corfield [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 4:42 PM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: Re: FBX3 AND CFMX
>
>
> On Monday, Feb 24, 2003, at 08:20 US/Pacific, John Paul Ashenfelter
> wrote:
> > This is
On Monday, Feb 24, 2003, at 08:20 US/Pacific, John Paul Ashenfelter
wrote:
> This is the actual issue I *was* talking about. All the really good FB
> developer I've worked with *have* modded the core file. And it's
> encouraged -- look at Hal's whitepaper on adding fbx_permissions for
> his
> CF_
AIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Monday, February 24, 2003 9:20 am
Subject: Re: FBX3 AND CFMX
> Granted, if a developer were to
> > totally rework the core files, some issues might arise; however,
> just> deviating from the methodology in some ways doesn't make it more
> > difficult
Granted, if a developer were to
> totally rework the core files, some issues might arise; however, just
> deviating from the methodology in some ways doesn't make it more
> difficult to follow. Besides, most developers don't fiddle around with
> the core files.
This is the actual issue I *was* tal
Hi,
Well, obviously, the code is only as good as the developer--no matter
what methodology is used. Fusebox can't really help with this issue. The
question that really has to be answered is: Does Fusebox enhance a
competent developer's effort to produce manageable, well documented
code? If your an
> I don't see how you could compare a well-written
> fusebox3 with one that is non-fuseboxed, unless it
> is written in some other tight knitted framework
> /methodology. The code would speak for itself.
In my opinion, well-written code is always self-documenting - it always
speaks for itself. I
Teel - Web Developer
Fulbright & Jaworski L.L.P.
Phone 713-651-5432
Fax 713-651-5246
-Original Message-
From: Dave Watts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 2:18 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: FBX3 AND CFMX
> I think you may need to provide a better exampl
> I think you may need to provide a better example of
> what your talking about in terms of a "bastardized
> Fusebox app".
>
> ...
>
> I do not know how much experience you have had with
> Fusebox, but it sounds to me--and I do not mean this
> as an insult in any way--as if you aren't very fami
> -Original Message-
> From: Michael Wilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 2:05 PM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: RE: FBX3 AND CFMX
>
>
> Hi,
>
> I think you may need to provide a better example of what your talking
> about in te
Hi,
I think you may need to provide a better example of what your talking
about in terms of a "bastardized Fusebox app". Although I have never
encountered anything similar to what you are describing, I am sure
someone else has. Even if the app is "Fusebox-ish", I would still be
able to quickly gra
> -Original Message-
> From: Michael Wilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 1:49 PM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: RE: FBX3 AND CFMX
>
>
> Hi
Hi!
> > I think the reason that people make so many variations
> > of Fusebox is
Hi
> I think the reason that people make so many variations
> of Fusebox is because they are constantly finding limitations.
You could also say people are finding ways to improve the methodology
(framework), which, is a good thing in some cases.
> As you stated, there could be so many variatio
> -Original Message-
> From: Ken Wilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 12:35 PM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: RE: FBX3 AND CFMX
>
>
> >I think the reason that people make so many variations of Fusebox
> >is because they a
> -Original Message-
> From: Barney Boisvert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 12:30 PM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: RE: FBX3 AND CFMX
>
>
> I have to disagree with this opinion. As I see it, there are two major
> 'types' of fus
>I think the reason that people make so many variations of Fusebox
>is because they are constantly finding limitations.
Or you could rephrase that in a somewhat more positive light rather than
a negative one: One of the reasons you find so many variations of
Fusebox is because creative developer
sk again, because that kind of stuff is such a
small piece of the puzzle.
barneyb
> -Original Message-
> From: Andrew Tyrone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 9:11 AM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: RE: FBX3 AND CFMX
>
> I think the reason tha
> ... or you get to slog through some Heinous Wonderland
> of Spaghetti Code.
Wasn't this one of the new rides at Disney World this year?
Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
http://www.figleaf.com/
voice: (202) 797-5496
fax: (202) 797-5444
> -Original Message-
> From: John Paul Ashenfelter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 11:07 AM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: Re: FBX3 AND CFMX
> My biggest criticism of FB is, while the community is great, it's
> not become
> a p
I would suggest that FB is more a set of rules than an
API.
--- John McCosker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >
//My opinion is that fusebox makes 90% of
> application development in
> //coldfusion easier and more standardized. The
> other 10% you have to either
> //violate the "rules" or make a w
and
whatever you chose for yourself is the worst one) but all distill good ideas
into a coherent package to grab and use.
Regards,
John Paul Ashenfelter
CTO/Transitionpoint
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original Message -
From: "Bryan Stevenson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-T
> FUSEBOX is not a set of rules, this is what is so irritating
> about peoples ignorance to the methodology, its a free Open
> Source standard API to work from.
I would have to disagree. If it's nothing else, it is a set of rules. It's
not a methodology, either; maybe it's a framework. It's cert
s, is this not called initiative, " breaking
rules " is so negative.
and my 2 cents, or 2p in N.Ireland J.
-Original Message-
From: Fregas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 20 February 2003 20:38
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: FBX3 AND CFMX
Bryan,
I think the issues here is trade-o
Try fertilizing with Netscape... I've heard it works wonders :)
- Original Message -
From: Bryan Stevenson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thursday, February 20, 2003 3:41 pm
Subject: Re: FBX3 AND CFMX
> Hey...I love to garden...how dare you compare my trusty spade
day, February 20, 2003 2:32 PM
Subject: Re: FBX3 AND CFMX
> Hey, there's nothing wrong with calling a spade a spade :)
>
> - Original Message -
> From: Fregas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Thursday, February 20, 2003 3:24 pm
> Subject: Re: FBX3 AND CFMX
&g
Hey, there's nothing wrong with calling a spade a spade :)
- Original Message -
From: Fregas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thursday, February 20, 2003 3:24 pm
Subject: Re: FBX3 AND CFMX
> Yeah, I agree. I'm so sick of the divisions. Mac vs PC, Microsoft
> vs The
&g
alk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 2:24 PM
Subject: Re: FBX3 AND CFMX
> Yeah, I agree. I'm so sick of the divisions. Mac vs PC, Microsoft vs The
> Word, Java vs .NET, my programming language can beat up your programming
> language.
>
> I say: The
programmer and I'll use what I'm able to.
Except for netscape browsers--those suck ass.
:)
- Original Message -
From: "Bryan Stevenson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 4:03 PM
Subject: Re:
>Did you start CF with FB or pickup FB along the way?
Picked it up along the way several years ago before there was any such
thing as version numbering with FB. I've not moved over to FB3 yet and
personally never much bought into the notion of the "thou shalt" and
"thou shalt not" aspect of the m
ebruary 20, 2003 4:04 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: FBX3 AND CFMX
Fregas said:
"One thing that fusebox did that has nothing to do with any particular
methodology is it taught me how to best structure a web application. It
taught me more about custom tags, application & session variable
> I still wouldn't mind hearing from the FBers out there
The one thing I like about fusebox is "no more CFLOCATION".
This is great and eliminates tons of issues with mac browsers.
Well, that and it was pretty close to what I was doing anyway. Don't we all
hate change :-)
~~
ginal Message -
From: "Fregas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 1:47 PM
Subject: Re: FBX3 AND CFMX
> Bryan,
>
> I started with just plain old vanilla cf. I hadn't done any web
> programmin
- Original Message -
From: "Bryan Stevenson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 3:39 PM
Subject: Re: FBX3 AND CFMX
> Couldn't have said it better myself Michael
>
> Do what works for you
fax
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.duodesign.com
-Original Message-
From: Bryan Stevenson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 3:39 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: FBX3 AND CFMX
Couldn't have said it better myself Michael
Do what works for you and your projects ;-)
I still wouldn
e: Thursday, February 20, 2003 1:40 pm
Subject: RE: FBX3 AND CFMX
> Hi,
>
> Actually, I totally understand where you're coming from. I wasn't
> tryingto imply that Fusebox is better, because for some people it
> certainly is
> not. And, you are right--A meth
ancouverisland.com
- Original Message -
From: "Michael Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 12:40 PM
Subject: RE: FBX3 AND CFMX
> Hi,
>
> Actually, I totally understand where you're coming from
As with any design pattern, it's a given that eventually, the pattern will have to be
violated for some particular bit of functionality.
- Original Message -
From: Fregas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thursday, February 20, 2003 1:38 pm
Subject: Re: FBX3 AND CFMX
> Bryan,
&g
concerned with still exist.
In any case, you seem to be very comfortable and productive within your
own methodology; that is all that truly counts. :)
Best regards
MW
-Original Message-
From: Bryan Stevenson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 3:21 PM
To: CF-Talk
S
To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 2:21 PM
Subject: Re: FBX3 AND CFMX
> Nope..ya missed my pointCFMX migration was just an example. I've seen
> lost of issues that FBers have had to workaround just to work within the
> methodolog
ia Associate Partner
www.macromedia.com
-
Vancouver Island ColdFusion Users Group
Founder & Director
www.cfug-vancouverisland.com
- Original Message -
From: "Michael Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, February 20
Hi,
If I understand your point correctly, I would argue that migrating any
existing application, Fusebox or other, to CFMX could potentially
require some code adjustments. For me, Fusebox has worked fine on CFMX
with only a single modification--telling Fusebox which version of CF I'm
using. Also,
3 11:02 AM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: Re: FBX3 AND CFMX
>
>
> LOL...nothing is better than CFFORM *snicker*
>
> Bryan Stevenson B.Comm.
> VP & Director of E-Commerce Development
> Electric Edge Systems Group Inc.
> t. 250.920.8830
> e. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> ---
, February 20, 2003 10:54 AM
Subject: Re: FBX3 AND CFMX
> Bryan Stevenson writes:
>
> > Thanks Barneystarightforward explanation without the "mines bigger
than
> > yours" comments ;-)
> >
> > I certainly don't want the "is FB good" debate
a.com
> -
> Vancouver Island ColdFusion Users Group
> Founder & Director
> www.cfug-vancouverisland.com
> - Original Message -
> From: "Barney Boisvert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "CF-Talk&q
sage -
From: "Barney Boisvert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 10:30 AM
Subject: RE: FBX3 AND CFMX
> I don't want to get into the quarterly "is FB good" debate, but had to
reply
> to th
-Original Message-
> From: Bryan Stevenson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 10:17 AM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: Re: FBX3 AND CFMX
>
>
> On a personal note.
>
> It still baffles me that people use FB simply because I always see various
&g
uary 20, 2003 11:17 am
Subject: Re: FBX3 AND CFMX
> On a personal note.
>
> It still baffles me that people use FB simply because I always see
> variouswrokarounds etc. because of using FB (like simply because
> of switching to
> CFMX this or that must be re-worked). I fu
rtner
www.macromedia.com
-
Vancouver Island ColdFusion Users Group
Founder & Director
www.cfug-vancouverisland.com
- Original Message -
From: "Sean A Corfield" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 8:21
Cheers Sean!
-Original Message-
From: Sean A Corfield [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 20 February 2003 16:22
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: FBX3 AND CFMX
On Thursday, Feb 20, 2003, at 05:42 US/Pacific, Larry Juncker wrote:
> Then everything works SUPER.
One issue to be aware of is
On Thursday, Feb 20, 2003, at 05:42 US/Pacific, Larry Juncker wrote:
> Then everything works SUPER.
One issue to be aware of is if any of your fbx_switch.cfm files contain
a large number of cases *and* a lot of code - you may hit the Java
switch/jump limit. A couple of people have reported r
Hi,
I hate to jump on the "me too" train, but I'm gonna do it anyway. I'd
like to see what you have done in regards to a Fb3 to CFC conversion.
Thanks :),
MW
-Original Message-
From: Mike Brunt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
If anyone would like a copy please let me know, it will be later
Yea sure mike, include me in that.
-Original Message-
From: Mike Brunt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 20 February 2003 15:04
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: FBX3 AND CFMX
To answer your question we have ported many FB3 apps over to CFMX with no
problems. The only caveat is if there are many
-Original Message-
From: Larry Juncker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 5:57 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: FBX3 AND CFMX
>>>I am receiving though, strange.
John, if this is the case, be certain that the email address that is
set up in your email client for ou
: CF-Talk
Subject: FBX3 AND CFMX
Hi,
just wondering, is there any issues with FBX3 and MX,
our will it run fine as it does under 5.0,
I know this is a topica question really, but I'm having problems sending to
the list,
I am recieving though, strange.
Re
Cheers Larry. :)
-Original Message-
From: Larry Juncker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 20 February 2003 13:43
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: FBX3 AND CFMX
The INDEX.cfm file for Fusebox 3 contains the following code
]]
Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 4:44 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: FBX3 AND CFMX
Hi,
just wondering, is there any issues with FBX3 and MX,
our will it run fine as it does under 5.0,
I know this is a topica question really, but I'm having problems sending to
the list,
I am recieving t
Actually that was one of my concerns,
cheers,
//Can I just say that you had better test this on a staging box first.
come on, I'm not stuuuppiiiddd.
J
-Original Message-
From: Andre Mohamed [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 20 February 2003 11:58
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: FBX3 AND
One small note with FBX3 and CFMX - just need to make sure that in your
index.cfm you include the CF5 core file (even though you are running on
CFMX)
e.g.
Everything else works same as on 5.
As for performance, no issues have arisen so far - debugging execution
times can be a little tricky as
: Kola Oyedeji [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 20 February 2003 11:31
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: RE: FBX3 AND CFMX
>
>
> Any performance issues?
>
> Kola
>
> >> -Original Message-
> >> From: John McCosker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> >> Se
Any performance issues?
Kola
>> -Original Message-
>> From: John McCosker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>> Sent: 20 February 2003 11:16
>> To: CF-Talk
>> Subject: RE: FBX3 AND CFMX
>>
>> WhHo!!
>> Right, lets Migrate this baby.
Can I just say that you had better test this on a staging box first.
Not gonna have you suing my arse cos you took my word for it :P
> -Original Message-
> From: John McCosker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 20 February 2003 11:16
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: RE
WhHo!!
Right, lets Migrate this baby.
-Original Message-
From: Adam Reynolds [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 20 February 2003 11:19
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: FBX3 AND CFMX
No problems. Running smoothly.
> -Original Message-
> From: John McCosker [mailto:[EMAIL PRO
No problems. Running smoothly.
> -Original Message-
> From: John McCosker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 20 February 2003 10:44
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: FBX3 AND CFMX
>
>
> Hi,
>
> just wondering, is there any issues with FBX3 and MX,
> our will it run
Hi,
just wondering, is there any issues with FBX3 and MX,
our will it run fine as it does under 5.0,
I know this is a topica question really, but I'm having problems sending to
the list,
I am recieving though, strange.
Respectfully,
J
~
86 matches
Mail list logo
