>It doesn't make any sense to say "JDBC is faster than ODBC". There are
fast
>and slow JDBC clients, and fast and slow ODBC clients. I doubt that
using
>the best Type 4 JDBC client against MS SQL Server will be as fast as
using
>the standard ODBC client for it.
Agreed, I have seen stuff around th
> Is there like a certification program for gitchy-gitchy-ya-ya - it sounds
> pretty robust. How does it handle in B2B implementations?
yeah but its requirements are a bit stiff, public singing, disrobing in
public places & liberal applications of makeup--i'll never pass
Subject: Re: Yo Macromedia: CFMX and UUID Issue!
>
>
> > That may be true, but in my opinion, the potential loss of
> performance is
> > easily offset by the ability to do more in your
> applications, without as
>
> plus you get to climb on the buzz word ban
> That may be true, but in my opinion, the potential loss of performance is
> easily offset by the ability to do more in your applications, without as
plus you get to climb on the buzz word bandwagon for free. webservices,
j2eee, xml, internationalization, remoting, gitchy-gitchy-ya-ya
> Tighter integration is great but performance enhancments are
> always a good selling point.
>
> It's tougher to justify an upgrade to my higher ups if we'll
> be losing performance.
That may be true, but in my opinion, the potential loss of performance is
easily offset by the ability to do m
; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2002 9:51 AM
Subject: RE: Yo Macromedia: CFMX and UUID Issue!
> > I have heard that JDBC is faster than ODBC, but even with the
> > bridge I don't think you will suffer any performance issues.
>
> It doesn't make any s
I can confirm that. CFMX PR didn't pickup any ODBC datasources on the
machine I installed it on.
- Original Message -
From: "Dave Watts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2002 10:02 AM
Subject:
> Are you saying that CFMX uses JDBC for all datasources and it
> won't pickup ODBC datadources defined thru control panel?
> What about system DSNs?
Yes, I'm pretty sure that CF MX uses JDBC for all datasources. This is why
it won't support the dynamic connectstring stuff added in CF 5. During
> I have heard that JDBC is faster than ODBC, but even with the
> bridge I don't think you will suffer any performance issues.
It doesn't make any sense to say "JDBC is faster than ODBC". There are fast
and slow JDBC clients, and fast and slow ODBC clients. I doubt that using
the best Type 4 JDB
Message-
From: Frank Mamone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 16 May 2002 14:26
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Yo Macromedia: CFMX and UUID Issue!
Does having a "bridge" affect performance?
Thanks
Frank M
- Original Message -
From: "Neil Clark - =TMM=" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Does having a "bridge" affect performance?
Thanks
Frank M
- Original Message -
From: "Neil Clark - =TMM=" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2002 9:16 AM
Subject: RE: Yo Macromedia: CFMX and UUID Issu
ne [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 16 May 2002 14:19
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Yo Macromedia: CFMX and UUID Issue!
Are you saying that CFMX uses JDBC for all datasources and it won't
pickup
ODBC dtatadources defined thru control panel? What about system DSNs?
Thanks!
- Original Mes
t;
Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 3:02 PM
Subject: RE: Yo Macromedia: CFMX and UUID Issue!
> I believe it's the ODBC... errr... JDBC drivers that they use. They are
> definitely different. I myself noticed that if I have a field in an access
> database called "userID", a query
> Queries that return UUIDs from SQL are coming back in Lowercase in CFMX.
> They didn't do that in CF5 or earlier. They are Uppercase in the database.
probably some other "quirks" as well. i can't seem to pack cfloop-ed t-sql
statements (ie dozens of inserts) into one cfquery any longer
__
I believe it's the ODBC... errr... JDBC drivers that they use. They are
definitely different. I myself noticed that if I have a field in an access
database called "userID", a query for the field "UserID" will fail. I know
that's my problem, but still - the ODBC drivers from version 5 didn't really
15 matches
Mail list logo