Wouldn't that be the same concept as 1,000,000 people hitting Yahoo's homepage and
search script every day?
I think what it comes down to is that a properly built application on a server capable
of handling those kind of requests is not going to have any problems with the Fusebox
methodology of coding.
---mark
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Warrick
Phone: (714) 547-5386
Efax.com Fax: (801) 730-7289
Personal Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Personal URL: http://www.warrick.net
Business Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Business URL: http://www.fusioneers.com
ICQ: 346566
--------------------------------------------------------------
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Donald Sparks [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, October 20, 2000 8:45 AM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: Re: fusebox style: too much disk access?
>
>
> Okay, I'm not concerned with cfincludes and those related issues.
> I am concerned with the handling of multiple requests on the
> index or "fusebox" page (i.e.) a single page. For example say I
> have 1,000 users on my site. If they are all accessing index.cfm
> as opposed to 20 to 30 different .cfm pages. How does this affect
> caching and does it produce any other problems.
>
> Thank you,
> Don Sparks
> not quite at the 32nd chamber of fusebox.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Steve Nelson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2000 3:23 PM
> Subject: Re: fusebox style: too much disk access?
>
>
> > Don't be confused by what Nat is saying, a single "fuseaction" in a
> > Fusebox application may only hit 5-8 files. It's really not that big a
> > deal.
> >
> > Steve
> >
> > Nat Papovich wrote:
> > >
> > > A simple test of included files suggests that CF's internal
> file access
> > > functions were pratically built with a cfinclude-heavy architecture in
> mind.
> > > Accessing dozens of files for a single page request is very quick. Out
> of
> > > 100 included files, you might notice a 10 ms increase than if you had
> all
> > > the code on the same page. Now that 10 ms performance hit gives you a
> > > scalable, intelligible architecture. If you have any experience with
> really
> > > large sites, you know that the only safe way to scale a project is to
> break
> > > it into small "minute modules".
> > >
> > > All this is without mentioning CF's ability to cache templates
> > > automatically. Accessing a file from RAM is basically instantaneous.
> > >
> > > If code scalability, readability, longevity, and understandability is
> > > important now or will be important later, you need to adopt a
> structured
> > > application methodology like Fusebox.
> > >
> > > Nat Papovich
> > > ICQ 32676414
> > > "I'm for truth no matter who tells it."
> > > -Malcolm X, 1965
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Cyrill Vatomsky [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > > Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2000 1:00 PM
> > > To: CF-Talk
> > > Subject: fusebox style: too much disk access?
> > >
> > > I was reading on the fusebox concept of putting minute modules into
> separate
> > > files and the question is: wouldn't that slow the site by having to
> access
> > > too many different disk files to load one page?
> > >
> > > Cyrill
> > >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------------------------
> Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/
> Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
> or send a message with 'unsubscribe' in the body to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebarRsts or send a message with
'unsubscribe' in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
