If a CFML application was compiled, then I would say that CF could do a really good damn job of putting locks in the right places.
But even languages like Java don't do this. Which tells me that compilers have a looooonnngggg way to go before they write code better than a programmer. Which is born out by: Assembly is faster than everything. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Matthew R. Small" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Monday, March 18, 2002 2:39 pm Subject: RE: RE: UDF question > 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 > betterthan 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 > Raymondappear 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 > > > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for dependable ColdFusion Hosting. 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
