> I may be wrong, but my understanding is that reads do not need a
> lock, only writes.
This is wrong. The point of locking, whether in CF or anywhere else, is to
control concurrent access to a shared resource. If you were to only lock
writes, then when someone executed an unlocked read during the locked write,
they'd access that resource while it's in a transitive state.
This is a common misunderstanding with locks. A lock doesn't really keep
other requests out, but rather specifies the conditions under which the
current request will operate. If other requests don't respect that (by
having their own locks), there's no point in locking.
Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
http://www.figleaf.com/
voice: (202) 797-5496
fax: (202) 797-5444
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists or send a message
with 'unsubscribe' in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
