----- Original Message ----- From: "Dave Watts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 8:04 AM Subject: RE: Locking by name - is is application independant ?
> > The problem with this is that you can't just lock "part" > > of the APPLICATION scope for example, if you want to do > > something to only some stuff stored in the app scope you > > need to use named locks - but if you do that you're gonna > > have to be careful that you don't use a name that some > > other application on the same server has used (perhaps > > without your knowledge if on a shared server). > > I don't know how well that would work, though, since the Application scope > is a structure - a variable - itself. I don't know enough about the > internals of CF to say whether it would be safe to only lock access to a > structure member, rather than to the structure itself, but personally, I'd > avoid it. It's a concurrency thing more than anything - if one request is setting up the stuff in APPLICATION.CONFIGURATION I don't want anything reading the configuration until I'm done. But they should be perfectly entitled to read and write to APPLICATION.LOGGEDINUSERS for example. I see where you're gettng at though, I think it's just a little inconvienient :-) ______________________________________________________________________ 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
