Forums

I'm glad you got it straightened out. It's been so long now since I actively worked on IHTK that I'm uncomfortably sure than many of it's regular users are now more familiar with it's operations than I am. :-)

--min

Hi Lewis,
We are considering upgrading to CF MX, but may postpone that upgrade if CFX_groups, CFX_users and CFX_permissions tags won`t work. Your posting on this subject is from July 2002. What is the current status?
Thanks!
Christina

I haven't used CF in a few months (primarily because of all the endless problems with CFMX*), but I briefly checked when the CFMX update 2 became available. It seemed to be working then -- at least on the computer I tried it on. I didn't do any extensive multi-computer testing however so I can't vouch for it on any computer other than that one. :)

About the only thing I can say is to cautiously install an eval version on a few dev machines with CFMX update 2 and see if it responds properly. The main issue with CFMX was that it seemed to bugger up the ADSI interface, which of course being a set of COM calls in the CFX's makes sense. All the functions of the post-NT tags that used the active directory technology simply were failing to get any results from the ADSI calls.

(*Speaking of which, seems the switch to an all ASP intrafoundation.com a few hours after your post was a little premature. Apparently not all the drivers were installed on the dedicated server during the move last week. Oops.:)

--min

Hi Lewis,
Just a quick update...
I did install an eval version of CFMX and tested out the portions of our code using the cfx_users, cfx_groups and cfx_permissions tags. The cfx_users and cfx_permissions tags worked fine, however, I was not able to get the cfx_groups to work. I found all the local group functionality I needed in the cfx_usermanager tag, though, so we are satisfied that should we be able to upgrade without significant problems in the future.
Thanks!
Christina