Maybe it's $250 an hour because they can do so same work (or better) in less than half the time? Just a thought.
-----Original Message----- From: Mark A. Kruger - CFG [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 2:16 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: UDF question Dave - 250$ an hour? send them to us, we'll work for half that <g>. -mk P.S. - you guys lawyers or something? -----Original Message----- From: Dave Watts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 12:17 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: UDF question > You're talking about developers who don't use CFLOCK > because they are ignorant of CF locking issues. I'm > sure we all agree that this is a bad thing, but it's > not exactly relevent to the original discussion. > > You can write perfectly "solid" applications that do > not lock session variable access. Simply enable the > Single Threaded Sessions option in the CF Administrator. Again, we may disagree about "solidity" here. It's been my experience that applications using this setting may have to be rewritten to handle significant load. If you asked the people who purchased the applications written this way, who then find out that they need to have changes made on nearly every page - expensive at $250/hr - they'd probably object to using the word "solid", unless they also worked in the words "steaming" and "pile" as well. > That's been my point from the beginning. It's not helpful > to compare this with "sloppy" or incompetent coding. One attribute of sloppy/incompetent coding is to avoid problem resolutions within the code itself. That's why we have exception handlers, for example. You could argue that, in CF, we have the site-wide error handler so we don't need exception handlers, but I'd argue that the programmer who appropriately uses exception handlers writes better (more competent, less sloppy) code than the one who doesn't. A non-sloppy, competent programmer will attempt to ensure that his program will perform optimally in whatever situation it is run - it'll fail gracefully if some other guy doesn't configure it correctly, or call it with the correct attributes, or whatever. This falls within the same category. If you write an application which relies on my configuring a server-wide performance setting, which may very well negatively affect how all the other apps on that server will run, and you write it this way in order to avoid adding a few lines of code here and there, in my book that's definitely sloppy, and not necessarily competent. Now, if you write code which you know will always be under your direct control, and you know that you can configure the server any way you like, and you know that the code won't have to support significant number of users, then there's nothing wrong with omitting your locks and using that setting. Most developers don't have those luxuries, though. Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ voice: (202) 797-5496 fax: (202) 797-5444 ______________________________________________________________________ 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
