"I have successfully been able to achieve great performance out of WDDX intensive applications using CF 4.5, 5, and MX"
The below is opposite to your statement. > The use of WDDX was not a performance related one as obviously WDDX > doesn't perform that well. Joe ----- Original Message ----- From: "Matt Liotta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 5:15 PM Subject: RE: CFMX Taking all CPU Resources? > The use of WDDX was not a performance related one as obviously WDDX > doesn't perform that well. We used WDDX as a way of marshalling data > between the presentation and business tiers as well as marshalling data > between CF and a variety of other programming languages. Quite simply, > the use of WDDX was an architectural decision that had serious > performance implications that we had to work around. > > Personally, I have always thought the WDDX Java library sucked and as > such have maintained a private fork of the code. I don't know if the > CFMX WDDX implementation makes use of the Java classes found at > http://www.openwddx.org, but I certainly have need to modify those > classes for my use. > > I am currently looking into using JAXB to replace the WDDX serializer > and deserializer classes. > > Matt Liotta > President & CEO > Montara Software, Inc. > http://www.montarasoftware.com/ > V: 415-577-8070 > F: 415-341-8906 > P: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Ben Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 2:05 PM > > To: CF-Talk > > Subject: RE: CFMX Taking all CPU Resources? > > > > > Sorry, I no longer work for the companies in question, so I can't > give > > > exact details. > > > > It doesn't have to be details about the work for the company itself. > > There > > seems to be a lot of factors in determining whether your > application(s) > > ran > > with great performance (i.e. number of users, where you used WDDX, > etc) > > and > > I'm curious as to how you gauge them. While I can see how someone > would > > be > > able to write an application that uses WDDX better than someone else's > > app, > > I'm not sure how you determined that your app ran with great > performace. > > In > > my understanding, there will always be overhead with WDDX because you > have > > to serialize and deserialize. > > > > Can you also give some of your ideas on when someone should use WDDX, > when > > not to, certain things to watch out for, etc? > > > > For myself, my favorite part about WDDX is being able to transfer data > to > > Javascript easily. Beyond that, I haven't had _too_ much use for it. > > > > > > > > > > Ben Johnson > > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
