Well, I'd rather just have single Application.cfm at the top of the tree
UNTIL I see that the walk up the tree is causing some discernible
performance problem. I'd always prefer to juice-up my infrastructure then
implement any kind of duplication. Duplication is the Devil's Right Hand.
How deep are you nesting your circuits? Do we have any metrics on the
performance hit from the ap-server searching up five level to reach
Application.cfm in the root?
LeeBB
-----Original Message-----
From: Douglas Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
For this reason, you should always have an application.cfm, even if the
only thing in there is there is a CF comment (to prevent throwing an error
on blank template).
At 07:31 PM 5/14/01, Bill Davidson wrote:
>That brings about another question... Since we use app_globals, and don't
>have application.cfm's - what's the penalty for not having an
>application.cfm? Does CF look recursively up the tree EVERY time a call to
>a fusebox app is made?
>
>I guess we could make a simple application.cfm, that doesn't do anything,
>but at least CF doesn't have to go looking around for something that ain't
>there.
>
IMPORTANT NOTICE:
This e-mail and any attachment to it is intended only to be read or used by
the named addressee. It is confidential and may contain legally privileged
information. No confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by any
mistaken transmission to you. If you receive this e-mail in error, please
immediately delete it from your system and notify the sender. You must not
disclose, copy or use any part of this e-mail if you are not the intended
recipient. The RTA is not responsible for any unauthorised alterations to
this e-mail or attachment to it.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at
http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
