On 6/16/07, Dinner wrote: > <random rhetorical aside (disregard)> > How come so much CF uses .cfm, when there's a ton that could be > written to plain html, sparing CF cycles? Cache takes care of it? > </random rhetorical aside (disregard)>
Hah. One of my pet rants. Answer is one or the other of 1. The developer/customer is not up to the task of complicating the admin/edit process by outputting static pages from their administration system 2. The developer/customer doesn't understand or dismisses the benefits of static delivery, or opines that gratuitous dynamic delivery is "what [insert app server here] is for". One of the best things you can do for a busy CF server is ... cut CF out of the picture. Let IIS do the heavy lifting and keep CF as an admin-only tool wherever possible. /rant -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Janitor, The Robertson Team mysecretbase.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Macromedia ColdFusion MX7 Upgrade to MX7 & experience time-saving features, more productivity. http://www.adobe.com/products/coldfusion?sdid=RVJW Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Talk/message.cfm/messageid:281564 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Talk/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
