You're right... it seems that the real question is whether or not the server can determine whether to exclusive lock or read-only lock better than the programmer. I (and Junkmail it appears) happen to think that it can, based on the rules that the CFML coders at MM give it. I base my thinking on having written my own compiler at one time. You and Raymond appear to be in the other camp, which is that coders need control over the locks. I think you guys win in the end, because that's the way it is. :-)
- Matt Small -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 4:19 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: RE: UDF question It comes down to a game: Can the server decide the best way to lock in less time than the "best manually coded" lock? Which then boils down to: Can the CF interpreter decide the best way to lock in less time than the time it would take a programmer to code the "best manually coded" lock? Which gives you the answer: No. But then, you come up with: Ok, fine, the interpreter can't decide the optimal way. But then, at what speed computer do we need so that the interpreter's "best not optimal solution" runs at the same speed as the programmers "best manually coded" lock? So there you go. Once we have 1 terahertz machines, it's really going to be irrelevant. Just like how using a GUI API these days is irrelevant in coding. Sure, you could right your own GUI code, but why bother when even a marginal solution does the job really really quickly on today's computers? ----- Original Message ----- From: Raymond Camden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Monday, March 18, 2002 1:40 pm Subject: RE: UDF question > > 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 > > ______________________________________________________________________ Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com 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
