I said:
> The following cfif has been working fine in CF5 for 3 years
> but it breaks in
> MX 6.1 with updater (we are just now migrating CF5 to MX, so
> I don't know if
> it would have worked in MX or MX 6.1 pre updater . . .):
>
>
>and trim(code) is not "W8"
> and trim(code
Exactly. The way this is written, the cfif statement could still execute even
is the code = "W8" or "W12" if RS1 is not defined.
>It looks to me like there is a parentheses missing or something,
>depending on what RS1 is. Maybe MX places different priority on the
>comparisons. I would think the
> I figure this is an ODBC vs. JDBC issue . . .
>
> The following cfif has been working fine in CF5 for 3 years
> but it breaks in MX 6.1 with updater (we are just now
> migrating CF5 to MX, so I don't know if it would have worked
> in MX or MX 6.1 pre updater . . .):
>
>
>and tri
>I figure this is an ODBC vs. JDBC issue . . .
>
>The following cfif has been working fine in CF5 for 3 years but it breaks in
>MX 6.1 with updater (we are just now migrating CF5 to MX, so I don't know if
>it would have worked in MX or MX 6.1 pre updater . . .):
>
>
> and trim(code) is no
4 matches
Mail list logo
