Thanks for the very good point Dave. But I think it depends where you are re-creating the application CFC instances. I have changed my idea of putting the creation of my 20 CFC Application instances. If I put them all into the Application.cfm like the example below, the cflock name does not make sense to be use because my 999 users will wait anyway that the application.cfm has finish to create the entire Application scope.
So I decided to put the creation of my CFC instance to the Facade services with a cflock name, that will make more sense I guest. So if I put into the MailServiceFacade.cfc the cflock name="MailServiceLock" and create the application CFC instance MailService.cfc, the execution after of, lets say, Application.MailService.SendEmail, can execute right away. It does not need to wait until my 19 others application CFC have been instantiated. I guest I can put into my MailServiceFacade.cfc, in the constructor, the creation of the Application CFC instance for MailService.cfc because when Flash call a method of MailServiceFacade.cfc, the execution of the constructor is always done. That's good, because we don't need to put the creation into all methods. Thanks Sean for your good article about facades http://www.macromedia.com/devnet/mx/flashremoting/articles/facades.html, it really make me understand that with Flash MX and ColdFusion MX we always need facade services because the real constructor does not execute each time that a method is being called by Flash and the instantiation of a the real CFC is only done once. The instantiation of the facade service MailServiceFacade.cfc is done every time now by Flash, but it contains simple code and a lot less number of lines (700) than the real service MailService.cfc (3000) which is done only once into an application scope. I guest it might help performance when you have thousand of users. Stephane Building a Flash MX/ColdFusion MX site. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dave Carabetta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2003 9:49 AM Subject: Re: [CFCDev] CFCs in memory > >On Monday, Jul 28, 2003, at 20:19 US/Pacific, St�phane Bisson wrote: > >>Thanks to make me understand... but I'm just questionning on one thing... > >>Let's take this example... > >> > >>I have this in my Application.cfm > >> > >><cfif NOT IsDefined("Application.MailService")> > >> <cflock scope="Application" Timeout="10" THROWONTIMEOUT="No" > >>Type="Exclusive"> > >> <cfif NOT IsDefined("Application.MailService")> > >> <cfobject component="#request.componentpath#MailService" > >> name="Application.MailService"> > >> </cfif> > >> </cflock> > >> </cfif> > > > >Looks good. > > > > Wouldn't it be better to use a named lock in this instance instead of > locking the entire Application scope? Why exclusively lock the entire scope > to set one variable? Seems like an unnecessary bottleneck to me, especially > if it takes a while to instantiate that component. That is unless, of > course, I'm missing something. > > Regards, > Dave. > > _________________________________________________________________ > The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > You are subscribed to cfcdev. To unsubscribe, send an email > to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word 'unsubscribe cfcdev' > in the message of the email. > > CFCDev is run by CFCZone (www.cfczone.org) and supported > by Mindtool, Corporation (www.mindtool.com). ---------------------------------------------------------- You are subscribed to cfcdev. To unsubscribe, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word 'unsubscribe cfcdev' in the message of the email. CFCDev is run by CFCZone (www.cfczone.org) and supported by Mindtool, Corporation (www.mindtool.com).
