Hi I'm joining this thread late. Can I just confirm what you guys are saying: In CFMX named locks should be used in place of scoped locks and locks are only needed When a possible race condition could occur?
Thanks Kola -----Original Message----- From: Sean A Corfield [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 04 October 2002 22:53 To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: Variable locking On Friday, Oct 4, 2002, at 12:07 US/Pacific, Gaulin, Mark wrote: > 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). Pre-MX. > 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... Which is no longer available in MX because it is no longer needed. > Basically, "NAME" is older than "SCOPE", and SCOPE was added to address > issues that NAME cannot handle. SCOPE was added to resolve bugs in earlier releases of CF around the shared scope memory corruption problems. That is no longer an issue in CFMX. 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 This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for dependable ColdFusion Hosting.
