7
Replies
Well, to be clear, I anticipated that (“I realize you may feel that you or others have “done it for years without problem”). 
As for your surprise that I would even suggest against it, I thought I was also clear: Adobe would say that you should use the CAR mechanism. But granted, those on Standard couldn’t, so they may have resorted to copying the xml files. That doesn’t make it right or recommended.
And yes, I would recommend against it, for three reasons:
- again, in copying between versions, the xml for one may not all apply for another
- and in wiping over what was in the one system with the file from the other, you may either lose values from the new one, or lose changes to the xml placed there by the new version
- finally, even in copying between two CF instances of the same version, there could still be values in the old file that were specific to that old instance, which may not be appropriate on the new
So could one be really careful in doing such a “manual migration”? Sure. But it’s not even easy to do a compare of the files, perhaps to surgically merge in values from one instance into the other, because as you may have noticed, the neo xml files are in wddx format, which means they are both minified and have no fixed order, so most compare tools can’t really compare them effectively.
As for your observation that it seemed the best way to ensure consistency, well, again, you may have been able to do it between systems of the same version, if you confirmed there was nothing instance-specific (or you tended to it). I’m just saying that no, it was not a generically supported notion that one should do that, even if people did do it. But we’ll call that just my opinion. You and others may disagree.
Moving on to how to proceed, you say you’re “not sure sold on the idea that everything will start working again if I just roll back”.
Well, I had actually asked first, “Can you clarify: did you experience all your other issues (from changing the name, down to deleting a task) on a CF10 installation where you had NOT tried to do that import? It would be helpful to hear”.
But if the answer is no, then back to your wondering about rolling back, I would ask, why not try it? If it works, you can then put a single task in manually, and compare how the xml file differs, to see what was amiss. Again, I would not be surprised that the scheduling xml is just very different in CF10 than before. And here’s something to consider: even if you are not using the “new” features in your “old” scheduled tasks, perhaps there’s no difference in the xml related to any one task, but there may be one or a few new xml elements that needed to be there which CF10 would have put there, but you wiped out in your copy. It’s worth checking. Then you’ll know how big a deal it may be.
And you may then also answer your question about whether it’s a difference about how they are keying the tasks within the file? Bottom line: why bang your head on this wall? I think you may just have to accept that the file is different and you can’t just drop an old one in its place. Figure out the differences, and press forward.
Hope this has been helpful in encouraging you toward this. I’m sure if you offer a reply with your findings, you may help others who find this discussion in the future.
To your last points, well, I can’t restore your faith in Adobe. I’ll only say I don’t share your dismay and concerns. As for your last questions:
- as for why “half the stuff they fixed in update 11 wasn't in update 1 or 2?”, well, I don’t know about EVERY fix in update 11, but certainly some wouldn’t have been fixed in update 1 or 2 because a) they may not have known the problem existed, b) they may not have known how to solve it, c) they may not have been able to solve something because of something related that was not fixed until some later fix (5, 6, or 7, for instance). I’m just guessing on all that. And I realize it may ring hollow if you have lost faith. I’m just offering a different perspective.
- as for your assertion that “the 404 error handler (hanging processes) issue still isn't fixed, even after applying the update and redoing the connectors”, well, it is fixed for some people after that. As for any still suffering, you ask why Adobe doesn’t acknowledge it. Are you positive that they know of it? Are you referring to clarifications someone has offered in a bug report (after the update came out)? Or a comment in the forum (which of course there’s no guarantee Adobe will read)? Again, not trying to be argumentative. Just trying to advance your cause.
I’ll add this also: I help people solve problems with CF and IIS every day, and I have seen plenty of instances where the person’s problem was because they were manually tweaking things (in desperation, perhaps based on tweets/blog entries/forum threads they’d read) and they’ve just made the lumpy bed they’re sleeping in—and blaming Adobe for. Tell you what: if you know any one person with the specific problem, I’ll offer an hour to look into it with them, to see if it’s a problem with IIS, connector, or CF configuration. If not, and it seems then clearly that it must be some real CF bug, I won’t charge for that hour.
As for your last point, I’ll only agree with you that it’s a shame that they didn’t think to test for this. But hey, I can’t cast the first stone. I’ve surely forgotten to test something which I should have (whether in defensively programming an app, or setting up some new security protection on a server). They’re human, they made a mistake. It was found, and corrected really quite quickly. I guess I choose to look at the glad half full, but I know others do see many of these things differently. I just keep trying to help, and offer a more positive perspective when I can and it seems warranted.
Hope something there’s helpful.
/charlie
AdChoices