Should they be locked for a read only? It was my understanding that CFMX removed the necessity of read locks for shared scope variables.
> -----Original Message----- > From: Seth MacPherson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 2:14 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: [CFCDev] Storing DSN parameters in a "global" variable > > > Allow me to comment on this one... > > Locking an entire query is a really poor choice as well - > particularly a named lock as used in the example. > > Application scoped variables should be locked using > > <CFLOCK SCOPE="APPLICATION"....></CFLOCK> > > And if you need to access an application variable, as in the > cfquery example, you're far better off setting a local > variable like so. > > <cflock type="READONLY" scope="APPLICATION" timeout="5"> > <cfset myDsn = application.myDsn /> > </cflock> > > <cfquery name="myQuery" datasource="#myDsn#"> > SELECT Blah > FROM Whah > </cfquery> > > The result is a very quick read and you're not going to cause > a race condition when your query takes a long time to execute. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 10:53 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: [CFCDev] Storing DSN parameters in a "global" variable > > That's actually not good practice. If you use the > Application scope in the query, you're "supposed" to lock the > scope around the query. > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Behalf Of Lyons, Larry > Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 1:48 PM > To: '[email protected]' > Subject: RE: [CFCDev] Storing DSN parameters in a "global" variable > > > Cody , > > I typically set the DSN and similar params in a "global" > variable. However, one thing to consider when storing DSN > parameters is do these parameters change all that often? If > not then why place these variables in the request scope? By > setting these params in the Request scope you set it and > reset it for each and every page request. It would seem to me > that the application scope is more appropriate for parameters > that rarely, if ever change. > > Here's how I handle these params, using your example: > > <cfif not structKeyExists(application,"DSNParams")> > <cflock name="appParamsLock" throwontimeout="yes" > timeout="60" type="exclusive"> > <cfset application.DSNParams = structNew()> > <cfset application.DSNParams.DSP = "myDBPassword"> > <cfset application.DSNParams.DSN = "myDSN"> > <cfset application.DSNParams.DST = "ODBC"> > </cflock> > </cfif> > > Then later on in deepest darkest Code land: > > <cfquery name="foobar" > datasource="#application.DSNParams.DSN#" > username="#application.DSNParams.DSU#" > password="#application.DSNParams.DSP" > type="#application.DSNParams.DST#"> > select Dunno > from whoCares > where apathy = "true" > </cfquery> > > hth, > > larry > > -- > Larry C. Lyons > Web Analyst > BEI Resources > American Type Culture Collection > email: llyons(at)atcc(dot)org > tel: 703.365.2700.2678 > -- > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Cody Caughlan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 12:53 PM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: [CFCDev] Storing DSN parameters in a "global" variable > > > > > > Is there anything inherently wrong with storing your DSN > > parameters in a Request-scoped structure and referring to > > these in your cfquerys, e.g.: > > > > <!--- pseudo-code ---> > > App.cfc::onRequestStart() { > > Request.DSU = "myDBUser"; > > Request.DSP = "myDBPassword"; > > Request.DSN = "myDSN"; > > Request.DST = "ODBC"; > > } > > > > .... later, in some code deep in your app... > > > > <cfquery name="foobar" datasource="#Request.DSN#" > > username="#Request.DSU#" password="#Request.DSP" > type="#Request.DST#"> > > .... > > </cfquery> > > > > > > Apart from the encapsulation this *does not* give you, is > > there anything wrong with this? That is, your code is now > > tied to the Request scope. I > > *know* it would be much better to pass every DSN struct into > > your CFC that needs it (possibly using some kind of a > > centralized object factory like ColdSpring). I have a fellow > > developer who prefers this "global" approach. I say its bad, > > he says its OK, because Macromedia (now Adobe) will never > > take away the the REQUEST structure, so its not like the code > > will ever break. My argument is that its not "proper coding", > > his argument is the magnitude of convenience this affords. > > > > Whats the right answer? > > > > Thanks > > /Cody > > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > You are subscribed to cfcdev. To unsubscribe, send an email > > to [email protected] with the words 'unsubscribe cfcdev' as > > the subject of the email. > > > > CFCDev is run by CFCZone (www.cfczone.org) and supported by > > CFXHosting (www.cfxhosting.com). > > > > An archive of the CFCDev list is available at > > www.mail-archive.com/[email protected] > > > > > > > This electronic communication, together with any attachments, > may contain information that is legally privileged, > confidential or otherwise private. The information is > intended only for the use of the individual or entity to > which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, > please be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or > use of the contents of this communication or any attachment > is strictly prohibited. If you have received this > communication in error, please immediately notify the > original sender and delete the received information from your > system. Thank you. > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > You are subscribed to cfcdev. To unsubscribe, send an email > to [email protected] with the words 'unsubscribe cfcdev' as > the subject of the email. > > CFCDev is run by CFCZone (www.cfczone.org) and supported by > CFXHosting (www.cfxhosting.com). > > An archive of the CFCDev list is available at > www.mail-archive.com/[email protected] > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > You are subscribed to cfcdev. To unsubscribe, send an email > to [email protected] with the words 'unsubscribe cfcdev' as > the subject of the email. > > CFCDev is run by CFCZone (www.cfczone.org) and supported by > CFXHosting (www.cfxhosting.com). > > An archive of the CFCDev list is available at > www.mail-archive.com/[email protected] > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > You are subscribed to cfcdev. To unsubscribe, send an email > to [email protected] with the words 'unsubscribe cfcdev' as > the subject of the email. > > CFCDev is run by CFCZone (www.cfczone.org) and supported by > CFXHosting (www.cfxhosting.com). > > An archive of the CFCDev list is available at > www.mail-archive.com/[email protected] > > This electronic communication, together with any attachments, may contain information that is legally privileged, confidential or otherwise private. The information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, please be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this communication or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the original sender and delete the received information from your system. Thank you. ---------------------------------------------------------- You are subscribed to cfcdev. To unsubscribe, send an email to [email protected] with the words 'unsubscribe cfcdev' as the subject of the email. CFCDev is run by CFCZone (www.cfczone.org) and supported by CFXHosting (www.cfxhosting.com). An archive of the CFCDev list is available at www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
