New Platform Support for ColdFusion 10 and ColdFusion Builder 2.0.1: Windows 8 and Windows Server 2012
Adobe ColdFusion 10 | Adobe ColdFusion Builder 2.0.1 | Announcements | Rapid Application Development | web application development | web application security | web programming
Microsoft Windows 8 and Microsoft Windows Server 2012 are now supported platforms for ColdFusion 10. The new Windows installers are available for download to all retail and licensing customers as well on the trials download page.
The ColdFusion Builder 2.0.1 installers have also been updated to support Windows 8. The existing MAC OS X installer for ColdFusion Builder 2.0.1 has also been certified to now support MAC OS X 10.8.
Refer this technote for more details about the support.
57 comments so far ↓
This is all good news. Just to repeat something I asked on Twitter so the answer is here as well as there:
Reading this:
http://helpx.adobe.com/coldfusion/kb/new-platform-support-coldfusion-10.html
It says:
Important Note: ColdFusion 10 Update 8 should be applied with the latest ColdFusion 10 windows installers.
So to be very clear, does this mean this new installer does NOT include update 8?
If so, why not?
Cheers.
--
Adam
Ideally we should have updated installers for all platforms and included latest hotfixes to keep everything same. However this approach would have caused further delay in support for Windows 8/2012.
Hence we took the approach of just updating the windows installer to support Windows 8/2012. For all platforms including Windows, Mac, Linux etc update 8 has to be applied separately.
The installers are updated for Windows but the CF bits are not changed. The CF bits are same as base installation earlier. As explained in the earlier comment, you would need to apply the update 8 to this install.
However the mandatory patch is included in windows installer so you need not apply the mandatory patch.
@Richard: No. It is only for CF10.
No big deal, so I manually go to the administrator and there is a blank screen. Go into the logs and there is nothing to indicate what is not working or if it did error. All the logs show is a successful start up, and there doesn't appear to be any problems in the Windows Logs either, looking for failure to install or something.
Have tried to remove the connectors, and re-install a number of times, with the same results.
At this stage, I have no idea what the issue is or what is occurring.
@Andrew: Strange. Win 8 or Win Server 2012? Please let us know if you are able to get more information or make some progress. We did not encounter this during our testing as well as from the limited pre-release that we had for new platform support.
The problem was related to the fact that if the jkarta was not previously removed, hence it was manually set up, it would not throw an error but refused to work.
Once I removed the cfide and jakarta from the default web site, and re applied the wsconfig, it all began working again.
But I did notice that although ColdFusion will run without the CGI part of IIS enabled, the installation still asks that it be added.
Considering that ColdFusion runs in application pool integrated, the CGI is actually obsolete for ColdFusion. Even all Microsofts KB articles clearly state that any application that runs in integrated mode the CGI is not required.
So my question is why is this a requirement?
As customer has option to run the application pool in classic. We generically ask for them to enable the CGI, so that connector configuration work seemlessly in both the application pool mode.
Thanks
In other words one should not be forced to have something installed that is not needed, and any administrator who is worth their status as Administrator should know that they have to run CGI for any classic pools to begin with.
The point is ColdFusion will work and run in both modes fine, and if a developer has to switch the application pool mode after installation then it becomes their responsibility to make sure they switch on CGI and not Adobe's for forcing everyone to have it installed when it will not be used by 99% of installations.
Run wsconfig and remove IIS, manually remove the above components then reun wsconfig again. All works now.
As CF platform matrix still supports the IIS earlier version where there is no integrated mode available, we need the CGI option to enable.
And also as IIS itself is not removed the classic mode from its application pool, we cannot make assumption that customers will not be running their application pool on classic mode.
If enabling and disabling the CGI option is real pain for the customer, then we can relook and see if we can ask customer to enable CGI option, Only if his selected site is running under Classic mode.
Please log a bug so that we can evaluate this option further. Thanks
This is the issue, because if you read the Technotes and KB articles, that means ColdFusion doesn't require the CGI mode as it's ISAPI doesn't use the .Net 2.0 framework.
If any website is in classic mode then it is up to the Administrator of the website to make sure that the Application it uses to turn CGI mode for IIS on, and not the job of ColdFusion.
Now I have asked many times why CGI has become a requirement, because of these factors and why the bug has already been raised.
If this assumption is wrong on my part I am open to understanding it further, but as I take it at the moment ColdFusion doesn't run needing the .Net 2.0 framework so it becomes one step we have to do for no reason what so ever.
From the support matrix (http://wwwimages.adobe.com/www.adobe.com/content/dam/Adobe/en/products/coldfusion/pdfs/cf10/coldfusion10-support-matrix.pdf) Their is still support for IIS 5.1 (Shipped with Windows XP) which runs on .NET 2.0 version.
Here CGI needs to be enabled to allow CF connector to work.
Thanks
Kiran Sakhare
To make it clear, We will not follow the Microsoft release cycle to support the next OS version. While there could be a few who would like to upgrade as soon as a new OS version comes out, there are reports to indicate that the adoption typically takes around an year. In fact the Windows 2012 adoption will only begin to pickup this year and increase next year.
@Adam: Get your facts right. Anyone who spends little time on Google search will know what you are saying hardly makes any sense.
At least NOT the ColdFusion team.
While you might be right in the adoption in production, have you stopped, and we have pointed this out to you on many occasions.
We are the developers, we are the ones that are getting the crap from customers because your products are late to the party.
Not only that, but a lot of developers have to migrate and put full blown testing of the environment sometimes up to 12 months before they go live with new servers and OS upgrades etc.
But Adobe makes that even longer with the attitude that you have just come out with.
Like how you once came out and said how the installer is locked down months before it is released, and yet right at the last minute some idiot decided to put a check in for CGI modules for IIS that is not even needed on any IIS from 7+, so that even contradicts you.
So how do we believe anything that comes out of Adobe any more.
The problem is that what you viewing may be true, you are forgetting that we are the ones that have to say to our bosses that Adobe refuse to release a version that works on Windows 2012, and we have to wait before we even start the life cycle of testing it works.
And then there is this, the Boss turns around and says, well if that is the case then lets look at moving away from ColdFusion then if that is the attitude of Adobe. Hence loss of sales as once stated to you.
That Rakshith is the sad truth that Adobe has never comprehended in this division called ColdFusion, and yet all other areas of Adobe have no issue getting updates to applications that work on newer releases of an OS.
And I wonder why there is an ever increase in people no longer updating to the latest ColdFusion version.
-Aaron
P.S. The title of this blog post currently says "Server Windows 2012". That should probably say "Windows Server 2012"? Very minor.
Now that we have already released the support, you go back and bring up an issue that is not an issue anymore.
We did listen to our developers. We prioritized the windows installers over other engagements to make sure we can bring the Windows support sooner to you.
If your boss has an issue with Adobe's commitment, reach out to me. You have my email id. Let us setup a meeting with your boss where we can showcase how Adobe's committed to the product in ways that you are not even aware of.
>>people no longer updating to the latest ColdFusion version
Again one of your crude guesses backed with no data. Unfortunately, they just don't work.
>>last minute some idiot decided to put a check
Such statements are just not acceptable Andrew. The least you can do is show a basic level of respect for the engineers. If you can't do that, then we don't need you nor your feedback!
Thanks for pointing the error in the title. I have corrected it now.
That is the reality that I face, and is not the reality that you see. So it is not a crude guess on my part at all.
Which facts would you like me to check? The one that XP *did* enter it's EOL cycle in 2005 (not all of it, granted, but the product *did* commence it's EOL back then)? The fact that that *was* a coupla years before CF8 even came out? The fact that you're still offering some XP support in ColdFusion, long after XP is dead? The fact that you do no longer support CF8? Or the fact I find all that a bit bemusing? Which of those? They are - as you point out - all FACTS.
Something else that's quiet likely to be a fact, but I haven't verified so won't claim that it is: you would be doing the ColdFusion community more of a service by continuing support for CF8 than you are for still supporting anything to do with XP. That's a valid observation I think. Obviously those two notions require differing levels of effort (radically so), but my point was more WhyTF are you still pissing around wasting resources on making *anything* in CF work on XP?
--
Adam
It's still a relevant discussion because there will be another CF release down the track at some stage, and there will also be other releases of the OSes down the track too. And there might well be overlap/underlap of these two release schedules. So we're applying the current state of affairs to how you ought to be addressing things in the future. And it seems like all this idea is being met by by you is a blank, bemused stare. It seems that you "just don't get it", to use a cliche.
Sorry, but *bad luck* if you'd have to have had CF certified on a beta and then recertified on the release version of [some operating system]. That's just a cost of being in the business you're in. The OS vendors *specifically* avail early versions of their software to vendors such as yourselves for the express purpose of giving you time to get your own software ready to work on it. This is why there are these betas. And this is why most software vendors spend a lot of time on these betas so that their software will be supported on it as soon as the OS comes out the door.
You already know this anyhow. You run your own prereleases of CF etc. This isn't *just* so you can engage volunteers such as myself to do your software testing for you, it's for us - the testers - to make sure our software works on your system. The way we ensure this is to both advise you when there's something that needs fixing in your beta software, but equally when there's something we need to adjust in our own software.
Why do you think it's OK for you to NOT do this with the under-development versions of operating systems that your own software needs to run on? Sure, it's not a direct analogy, but it does demonstrate the point. One that you are either accidentally or willfully missing, I think.
--
Adam
Does that mean Adobe now have the right, or the attitude should I put it, to then delay it out another 6 months because the adoption of OS upgrades gets pushed out further.
I understand what Adobe have done, I just think their attitude is completely wrong on the situation. Especially since the only thing that stopped us from installing ColdFusion 10 was the installer itself.
If your policy of good practice is to not test on and build with the beta versions of technologies we use until they have been out for six months or more??? Why do you think anyone should test ColdFusion before it is released? Your logic has a HUGE conflict!
@Adam: I contemplated replying back to you with the same insolence that you showcase in your response. But felt it is nothing but a waste of my time. Microsoft clearly states that it will support Windows XP till April 8th 2014. You come back to say not all of Windows XP entered it's EOL in 2005 from your previous post that goes 'XP entered it's EOL lifecycle in 2005', that is a change in the *FACT* already. I am curious to know the link where you got this information. Can you point to that link from Microsoft?
I have answered the question on XP support and the future plans around it as well. Again, you don't seem to get the point. I am not *against* testing ColdFusion on beta nor am I stating that we will not do it. We have done it in the past and we will continue to do that. Not very useful does *not* mean we will not be testing on pre-release versions.
@John: I will reiterate, I am not suggesting that there is no scope of improvement with our windows support. There surely is and we will see how to address that with the next windows support.
I can't vouch for any of the other OS's, but I can't recall the last time, or even if this situation has ever happened before.
The XP info comes from here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_XP#Support_lifecycle
This is borne out by the link it cross-references. I - likewise - checked the dates on the other things I mentioned. Support for the initial releases of XP ceased in 2005. Sure they continued to support various patched releases after that, but that's not so relevant to the point I was trying to make. As of 2005, MS were phasing XP out. And we're now 7.5yrs after that timeframe.
I didn't say MS didn't / don't offer any residual support on XP, and that's not really relevant to the point I'm making. The fact of the matter is - in almost any way one comes to measure it - XP has been being phased out for the best part of a decade, and is basically dead technology these days. It'd be even more dead even sooner had Vista not stumbled off the blocks. This is, I hasten to add, not because MS had any desire on the part of MS to prolong support for XP, but just that the clientbase weren't interested in shifting from it.
So I question what the logic is behind you wasting resources continuing to support anything about XP on ColdFusion. This is, I think, a reasonable question. Especially if contextualised by observing you don't even support your OWN products that are much more recent than that.
In closing, pls shelve your patronising attitude and address the point, rather than attacking the person making said point.
Thanks.
--
Adam
I will be keen on addressing a point, but I will not take any random statement that you make that turns out to be on the lines of your statement quoted above!
XP is still supported by Microsoft and I have recent data to believe that good amount of developers still use XP. If we had taken off XP back when we came out with CF10 in 2012, that number of CF developers using XP would only be higher than this if not lesser. And for all you know, you would be the first one to jump out and ask us why XP support was removed without any notice. But having said that, we will surely get rid of XP and Vista in the upcoming versions.
If Microsoft intends to support XP for a longer duration that doesn't mean that we will have to match that with support for our products. 5 years of core support is a standard that we have followed for many years now across multiple releases.
Finally, get rid of your disrepectful quotes that you seem to throw once in a while to make your point, if your point needs to be considered at all.
All fair enough - we finally got there - except for this bit: "Finally, get rid of your disrepectful quotes [etc]".
The only text I quoted in my last comment is what *you* said to *me*. IE, I quoted this: "Get your facts right. [...] what you are saying hardly makes any sense." YOU said that to ME (Comment #30). If it's not that bit, I'm not sure which quote you mean?
Anyway, if it sounds disrespectful quoted back at you well... yes. That was kinda my point.
Cheers.
--
Adam
If we were to review all this, I think I made (what I thought was ~) a reasonable observation that I found it quite bemusing that you guys still support XP when - for example - you don't support CF8 which is less out of date than XP is.
And you got stroppy. And continue to be so.
Despite all that, I've remained civil and have merely clarified things when you asked, and then asked for clarification when I didn't follow you.
Isn't that a fairly reasonable summary of the general gist of the exchange between us?
I can only surmise you've taken offence @ my usage of "whyTF" earlier, as that's about all I can see that one might possibly take some sort of offence at or have *any* sort of grounds to get stroppy at. If that's it, sorry. It wasn't intended as invective, just "insert standard tech jargon here".
--
Adam
@Adam, crude jargon may be common but that is not the same thing as standard. :)
@Adam: Let's get some peace back here. You have always been passionate about ColdFusion and I appreciate that. Am sorry too. Look forward to your continued feedback and support.
So going to need some help. You are positive the downloads have been updated?
I do see the updated title. And you're welcome!
Thanks,
-Aaron
Go to reset connectors after updates, removes fine, but then says:
Version 8.0 is installed. Supported versions are 4.x, 5.x, 6.x, 7.x.
Even if I wasn't refreshing connectors from updates, if I was following the lockdown guide, i'd run into the same issue.
Bug 3530539
I have tested this by doing the following
1) Install on Windows 8 and Windows 2012, apply update 8 and the problem occurs
2) Install on Windows 8 and Windows 2012, apply Update 1 through 8 and try it again, still no go.
3) Install the older version without Java 7 support, apply update 8 and it works fine.
4) Install the older version without Java 7 support, apply updates 1 through 8 and it still works fine.
This is a serious critical issue that has to be fixed urgently.
--
Adam
And it is critical to all those who DO use Java, this is not the only example I have come across that breaks under this release.
Honestly this doesn't annoy me, as my production server is Windows 2008 SR2 and it works fine, it annoyed me that I had to deploy a new VPS for development but other than that I am not annoyed with this.
Anything in my eyes that is not consistent, and has potential to cause underlying issues should be considered critical as more an more people do use Java like this, so that would mean that maybe someone should look at fixing this quickly.
Leave a Comment