“Merrimack” is the codename for the ColdFusion MX7 updater in beta right now. The updater adds support for additional Linux flavors, Oracle AS, Mac OSX and WebSphere ND. It also updates some of the 3rd party bits (thereby fixing some bugs) and properly exposes CFCProxy (used to invboke CFCs from Java code). The beta application is online

13 thoughts

  1. Looks like a familiar pattern, first full release with bugs followed by a quick fixer upper release. Why MM cannot deliver quality product on the first attempt?

  2. Tom, as noted in my post, while there are bug fixes, the updater is mostly about new platforms and new 3rd party bits. That’s a good thing, I think.

  3. Tom,
    I would point out that they pretty much got it right this time. If you look at the release of 6 and the subsequent release of 6.1.
    There weren’t any real show stoppers with the release of 7.
    I will however state that I did wait until the 1st patch before allowing myself to use 7 on a live box.

  4. Tom,
    I understand the frustration if you have a bug issue, but CFMX7 rocks! You will find that if software does something it is likely less than perfect. All the major platforms have issues… and none of them are perfect. I am SUPER IMPRESSED with CFMX7. Perhaps you should give us the name of that company that can deliver the "100% bug free" product on the first try. I am sure MM will contact them and glean the secret that has escaped the entire industry.
    Sincerly,
    <CF_Happy user="John Farrar">

  5. I like new features introduced in CF7, and I am a big CF advocate. However, I think MM should at least document the product better, I found a whole documentation page, which was more than 50% incorrect. As for companies that release products that are less buggy than MM, how about Sun and its Java programming language. Or how about C – did anyone find a bug in C lately (choose least buggy compiler you know of)? As for programs that have awards for finding bugs – check out TeX – it’s been years since a bug was found in de-facto standard scientific typesetting engine (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TeX and quality section). Its very hard to produce bug free code, its hard to produce code with few bugs (whatever that is defined as). However, a good programmer (or company) must always aim high in terms of his product’s quality. Even if one were to show that the amount of buggy software present on the planet is on the rise, such fact should not be used as an excuse for production of low quality code (cannot be a lemming here).

  6. Tom,
    Tell that to marketing 🙂
    One thing I don’t like if that cfhttp doesn’t currently deal with compressed web content (e.g. mod_zip) . You have to tell the server you get your data from to send it in a non-compressed format. Not so much a bug, just a major oversight.
    Adam

  7. Tom… give me a link and name of the Current C compiler. My guess is these were not (as I stated) feature ritch current technologies. I used to program in C also and it was nice, but not perfect. My suggestion is for you to take part in the beta and submit bugs rather than complaining about them after they are released. Look at windows… service patches abound. There are two reasons for that… but one is because users are demainding more features to remain loyal and they want the features now. Oh… not having a feature isn’t a bug Adam. Send your request to the wish list at Macromedia. (And Tom… are you saying Microsoft C# doesn’t have any bugs? Again… if not… which CURRENT C is the model of perfection? a compiler that isn’t adding features can improve. Then there are the libraries that it interfaces with… HEH! I happen to know that C programmers spend lotsa time debugging… even the ones on older technology. But the reasons for that are OT, let’s just say you aren’t telling the whole story.)

  8. John,
    I didn’t say there is a C compiler out there, that I know of, that is bug free. In my experience it is rather hard for someone to discover C compiler bugs. The comparison was there to point to better quality, not perfection, which is just to expensive to achieve in a large application (unless you are talking about nuclear reactor, better to avoid bugs there). The idea is to improve one’s code and attempt to reach bug free code, almost failing to get there every time (due to $ and time), but getting close. The topic is rather broad, there is a book out there called “Rapid Development” which I have and which provides more detailed explanation of my position.
    I was beta tester for CF 7. I also sent over to MM team few bugs I discovered.

  9. I hope that the mySQL 4.1 and 5.0 options are finally added to the DSN options. Entering these manually has been a pain in the butt.

  10. Any word on when the updater will be released? We’re working on a major release at the moment and need to decide if we should hold off testing for the updater…

Leave a Reply