> But shouldn't this whole issue be written into the server code? > Wouldn't it would run much faster that way than both the > individual sets > of cflocks that you've portrayed and the reality which is > sets of locks > around blocks of session accesses? As far as readonly or > exclusive goes, > then shouldn't the complier be able to distinguish the two?
Again, speaking as a guy who has never used C++ or any other 'deep' language (well, Java, but Java is easy ;), I don't think you are right, and I HIGHLY encourage anyone out there to correct me if I'm wrong. I'm not saying the server CANT do the lock, I'm just saying that it could not be as fast as lettering the user make specific locks. > And as long as we're here, show me a single time when you > don't want to > use locks around a session scope. > Um.... I can't, because I _always_ think you should use locks. Did you mean that question for me? ;) ======================================================================= Raymond Camden, Principal Spectra Compliance Engineer for Macromedia Email : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo IM : morpheus "My ally is the Force, and a powerful ally it is." - Yoda ______________________________________________________________________ Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
