upgrading from 6 0 to 6 1 (ColdFusion MX )

I have a client who is worried about upgrading from 6.0 to 6.1.  Can a few folks rundown the pitfalls for me. Also, some of you with GOOD experiences with 6.1 give it a plug for me.  My client has spent time on the Forum looking for positives about cfmx. But because people with problems start at the forum, I'm sure he's read mostly negatives. Thanks! -Mark Mark A. Kruger, MCSE, CFG www.cfwebtools.com www.necfug.com http://blog.mxconsulting.com ...what the web can be!

CFMAILPART bit us in the rear when migrating.  We'd been manually assembling multipart messages since the 4.5 days, and in CFMX it throws an error.  The code analyzer doesn't catch it, so you have to manually search. Other than that, 6.1 has been great.  Development is much better with the new compiler, CFCs are vastly improved, and we haven't cycled 6.1 on our cluster since we went live on it back in October.  We ended up cycling 6.0 every couple months while we were running it. Cheers, barneyb ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Thanks Barney   CFMAILPART bit us in the rear when migrating.  We'd been manually assembling   multipart messages since the 4.5 days, and in CFMX it throws an error.  The   code analyzer doesn't catch it, so you have to manually search.   Other than that, 6.1 has been great.  Development is much better with the   new compiler, CFCs are vastly improved, and we haven't cycled 6.1 on our   cluster since we went live on it back in October.  We ended up cycling 6.0   every couple months while we were running it.   Cheers,   barneyb   > I have a client who is worried about upgrading from 6.0 to   > 6.1.  Can a few folks rundown the pitfalls for me. Also, some   > of you with GOOD experiences with 6.1 give it a plug for me.     > My client has spent time on the Forum looking for   > positives about cfmx. But because people with problems start   > at the forum, I'm sure he's read mostly negatives. Thanks!   >   > -Mark   >   >   > Mark A. Kruger, MCSE, CFG   > www.cfwebtools.com   > www.necfug.com   > http://blog.mxconsulting.com   > ...what the web can be!   >   >   >   >   >   >

I wholeheartedly agree - didn't help the fact that MM did not mention that the 'old' way of mailing multipart emails would no longer work in any of the upgrade documentation.  I was told from someone at MM that they were not aware of people using the workaround in previous versions.  BS, IMO.... Also, and I dunno if this was a part of 6.0 or 6.1, but when using cfmail, CF will throw errors at badly formatted email addresses, so if you have an app that uses cfmail to send to a user that entered in their address, you could get errors that were not thrown before.  CF4+ would just ignore them.  So, you will have to build in error handling for bad email address if you don't already do that. In spite of the changes that you'd have to make for cfmail, I still think that you should go for the upgrade.  I won't repeat Barney's response, but I certainly do agree with it! My opinion, FWIW. Ray At 02:19 PM 4/26/2004, Barney Boisvert wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Thanks for all the comments so far - does anyone else have anything to add?   -mark   I wholeheartedly agree - didn't help the fact that MM did not mention that   the 'old' way of mailing multipart emails would no longer work in any of   the upgrade documentation.  I was told from someone at MM that they were   not aware of people using the workaround in previous versions.  BS, IMO....   Also, and I dunno if this was a part of 6.0 or 6.1, but when using cfmail,   CF will throw errors at badly formatted email addresses, so if you have an   app that uses cfmail to send to a user that entered in their address, you   could get errors that were not thrown before.  CF4+ would just ignore   them.  So, you will have to build in error handling for bad email address   if you don't already do that.   In spite of the changes that you'd have to make for cfmail, I still think   that you should go for the upgrade.  I won't repeat Barney's response, but   I certainly do agree with it!   My opinion, FWIW.   Ray   At 02:19 PM 4/26/2004, Barney Boisvert wrote:   >CFMAILPART bit us in the rear when migrating.  We'd been manually assembling   >multipart messages since the 4.5 days, and in CFMX it throws an error.  The   >code analyzer doesn't catch it, so you have to manually search.   >   >Other than that, 6.1 has been great.  Development is much better with the   >new compiler, CFCs are vastly improved, and we haven't cycled 6.1 on our   >cluster since we went live on it back in October.  We ended up cycling 6.0   >every couple months while we were running it.   >   >Cheers,   >barneyb   >   > > I have a client who is worried about upgrading from 6.0 to   > > 6.1.  Can a few folks rundown the pitfalls for me. Also, some   > > of you with GOOD experiences with 6.1 give it a plug for me.   > > My client has spent time on the Forum looking for   > > positives about cfmx. But because people with problems start   > > at the forum, I'm sure he's read mostly negatives. Thanks!   > >   > > -Mark   > >   > >   > > Mark A. Kruger, MCSE, CFG   > > www.cfwebtools.com   > > www.necfug.com   > > http://blog.mxconsulting.com   > > ...what the web can be!   > >   > >   > >   > >   > >   > >   >   >