Actually, that using NAME is not a better practice... the SCOPE attribute is safer and is also what MM support advised us to use (when applicable).
Sure, the scope of a NAME-based lock will be tighter than using SCOPE, but SCOPE will be safer and, as a bonus, you can use CF 5's (and prior) auto-checking for missing locks... that doesn't work if you use the NAME version to try to protect the session, application, etc scopes. (Note: I only use the auto-checking on a development machine.) Basically, "NAME" is older than "SCOPE", and SCOPE was added to address issues that NAME cannot handle. NAME still has a place though, since there are other kinds of locking you may need to do that SCOPE is inappropriate for. Mark -----Original Message----- From: Sean A Corfield [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 2:46 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: Variable locking On Friday, Oct 4, 2002, at 11:37 US/Pacific, Paul Giesenhagen wrote: > Yup (on CF5, good practice on CFMX but not required) > > <cflock timeout="20" throwontimeout="No" type="READONLY" > scope="SESSION"> > <cfoutput>#session.fullname#</cfoutput> > </cflock> Better practice: <cflock timeout="20" throwontimeout="No" type="READONLY" name="session_fullname"> <cfoutput>#session.fullname#</cfoutput> </cflock> Using a named lock instead of a scoped lock. An Architect's View -- http://www.corfield.org/blog/ Macromedia DevCon 2002, October 27-30, Orlando, Florida Architecting a New Internet Experience Register today at http://www.macromedia.com/go/devcon2002 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists&body=lists/cf_talk FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm