Sir Robert Everland the III, >You would have to know the name of the lock you set up.
I agree. That's a downfall of using named locks, but another great reason to encapsulate all locking in 1 place! > Named locks on application scope are not needed I disagree. If you were to update the application scope and not just read from it, you need to lock. > Someone pointed out that they don't lock the entire box, only the > application, then the scope. I agree. If you lock the session scope, I think it's only that specific session that's locked and not all sessions on the box - same with application scope, only a specific application is locked and not all applications on a box. Baz -----Original Message----- From: Robert Everland III [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2006 2:37 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: Encapsulate persistent variables I have an issue with using name locks. I think that becomes very unmanigable unless you set up a dynamic name based on session. Named lockes on application scope are not needed. It's only going to be a one hit and that's it. The only place would be session. Someone pointed out that they don't lock the entire box, only the application then the scope. Bob ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:229383 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
