RE: CFC Performance Best Practice
Your best bet is to separate CFCs into their logical parts. This will aid in usuability and readablity. Performance differences would be negligable(sp?). Remember that CFCs are components and most developers will see them as that. So instead of having one big CFC for ecommerce app, you would have a component for each component of the ecommerce application (customers,orders,cart,etc..). My $0.02 -- Ryan Emerle -Original Message- From: Ian Skinner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 24, 2003 10:25 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: CFC Performance Best Practice The question I have, is there any performance advantages and/or disadvantages to one large CFC file versus several smaller ones? I'm writing an application using a CFC for all my administration database tasks. Currently I have everything in one CFC file. The tasks could probably be logically broken up into three or four smaller CFC files by function type. My question is there any performance reason to do this? The single large file will probably top out at about 20K, does this add to the overhead of any template calling on the CFC? -- Ian Skinner Web Programmer BloodSource Sacramento, CA ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribeforumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
Re: CFC Performance Best Practice
On Monday, Mar 24, 2003, at 07:24 US/Pacific, Ian Skinner wrote: The question I have, is there any performance advantages and/or disadvantages to one large CFC file versus several smaller ones? Not really (in terms of real-world, under load performance). Currently I have everything in one CFC file. The tasks could probably be logically broken up into three or four smaller CFC files by function type. In terms of maintainability and readability - which should generally be overwhelming concerns - you almost certainly want to break your CFC up into more logical components. Whilst I don't want to minimize performance issues, they really should take a back seat to maintainability issues. Remember that macromedia.com's back end is built heavily on CFCs using design patterns and a lot of good OO practice - and it handles over 15,000 active sessions during peak traffic. Sean A Corfield -- http://www.corfield.org/blog/ If you're not annoying somebody, you're not really alive. -- Margaret Atwood ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribeforumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for dependable ColdFusion Hosting. Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
RE: CFC Performance Best Practice
macromedia.com's back end is built heavily on CFCs using design patterns and a lot of good OO practice - and it handles over 15,000 active sessions during peak traffic. Speaking of which, is there going to be a run down of how it was developed? Showing best practices etc in developing large sites with CFMX, CFCs, Flash etc? Or is there one already that I've missed? I've seen the info on what's been done, but not HOW it's been done? Tim. --- RAWNET LTD - Internet, New Media and ebusiness Gurus. Visit our new website at http://www.rawnet.com for more information about our company, or call us anytime on 01344 393 040. --- Tim Blair Web Application Engineer, Rawnet Limited Direct Phone : +44 (0) 1344 393 441 Switchboard : +44 (0) 1344 393 040 --- This message may contain information which is legally privileged and/or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any unauthorised disclosure, copying, distribution or use of this information is strictly prohibited. Such notification notwithstanding, any comments, opinions, information or conclusions expressed in this message are those of the originator, not of rawnet limited, unless otherwise explicitly and independently indicated by an authorised representative of rawnet limited. --- ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribeforumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for dependable ColdFusion Hosting. Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
Re: CFC Performance Best Practice
On Monday, Mar 24, 2003, at 08:52 US/Pacific, Tim Blair wrote: macromedia.com's back end is built heavily on CFCs using design patterns and a lot of good OO practice - and it handles over 15,000 active sessions during peak traffic. Speaking of which, is there going to be a run down of how it was developed? Showing best practices etc in developing large sites with CFMX, CFCs, Flash etc? Or is there one already that I've missed? I've seen the info on what's been done, but not HOW it's been done? Yes, we will be publishing a series of articles on Macromedia DevNet. My article on facades hints at some of the structure behind the site (at a very high level): http://www.macromedia.com/devnet/mx/flashremoting/articles/facades.html Sean A Corfield -- Director, Architecture Web Technology Group -- Macromedia, Inc. tel: (415) 252-2287 -- cell: (415) 717-8473 aim/iChat: seancorfield -- http://www.macromedia.com An Architect's View -- http://www.macromedia.com/go/arch_blog Announcing Macromedia DevNet Subscriptions Maximize your power with our new premium software subscription Find out more: http://www.macromedia.com/go/devnetsubs ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribeforumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
CFINCLUDES and RE: CFC Performance Best Practice
Sean just wanted to revisit something, which is sort of related in a way. Am I right in my assumption that nested CFINCLUDES/CUSTOM TAGS cause performance issues in CFMX? I am fully aware that they are bad coding practice but just wanted to clarify this point. Kind Regards - Mike Brunt Webapper Services LLC Web Site http://www.webapper.com Blog http://www.webapper.net Webapper Web Application Specialists -Original Message- From: Sean A Corfield [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 24, 2003 8:37 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: CFC Performance Best Practice On Monday, Mar 24, 2003, at 07:24 US/Pacific, Ian Skinner wrote: The question I have, is there any performance advantages and/or disadvantages to one large CFC file versus several smaller ones? Not really (in terms of real-world, under load performance). Currently I have everything in one CFC file. The tasks could probably be logically broken up into three or four smaller CFC files by function type. In terms of maintainability and readability - which should generally be overwhelming concerns - you almost certainly want to break your CFC up into more logical components. Whilst I don't want to minimize performance issues, they really should take a back seat to maintainability issues. Remember that macromedia.com's back end is built heavily on CFCs using design patterns and a lot of good OO practice - and it handles over 15,000 active sessions during peak traffic. Sean A Corfield -- http://www.corfield.org/blog/ If you're not annoying somebody, you're not really alive. -- Margaret Atwood ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribeforumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq 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 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
Re: CFINCLUDES and RE: CFC Performance Best Practice
On Monday, Mar 24, 2003, at 09:30 US/Pacific, Mike Brunt wrote: Am I right in my assumption that nested CFINCLUDES/CUSTOM TAGS cause performance issues in CFMX? I am fully aware that they are bad coding practice but just wanted to clarify this point. News to me... both that they supposedly cause performance issues and that they are bad coding practice... could you clarify for me? Sean A Corfield -- http://www.corfield.org/blog/ If you're not annoying somebody, you're not really alive. -- Margaret Atwood ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribeforumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in ColdFusion and related topics. http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
RE: CFINCLUDES and RE: CFC Performance Best Practice
Ok Sean, on the performance I read that somewhere but cannot recall where, when I do I will point it out. With regard to coding bad practice I have no doubts that multiple layers of nested includes-custom tags are bad practice as they make code very hard to read and follow. Our opinion here at Webapper is that all who see our code should be able to fully understand what we did, how and why and even with the best of commenting multi-level nested includes are very hard to follow. Kind Regards - Mike Brunt Webapper Services LLC Web Site http://www.webapper.com Blog http://www.webapper.net Webapper Web Application Specialists -Original Message- From: Sean A Corfield [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 24, 2003 9:35 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: CFINCLUDES and RE: CFC Performance Best Practice On Monday, Mar 24, 2003, at 09:30 US/Pacific, Mike Brunt wrote: Am I right in my assumption that nested CFINCLUDES/CUSTOM TAGS cause performance issues in CFMX? I am fully aware that they are bad coding practice but just wanted to clarify this point. News to me... both that they supposedly cause performance issues and that they are bad coding practice... could you clarify for me? Sean A Corfield -- http://www.corfield.org/blog/ If you're not annoying somebody, you're not really alive. -- Margaret Atwood ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribeforumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq 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 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
RE: CFINCLUDES and RE: CFC Performance Best Practice
Actually I disagree with this. It is true that breaking up code into smaller blocks that are contained in several files can make code hard to follow. Sometime you go from template - includes - tags - storedprocs - to database - triggers.. which can be pretty confusing. However the benefit of this approch becomes evident when you start changing code. And good documentation will help you here... Of course there is a difference between good abstraction and just writting spaghetti code, and I've written both:-) WG -Original Message- From: Mike Brunt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 24 March 2003 18:01 To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: CFINCLUDES and RE: CFC Performance Best Practice Ok Sean, on the performance I read that somewhere but cannot recall where, when I do I will point it out. With regard to coding bad practice I have no doubts that multiple layers of nested includes-custom tags are bad practice as they make code very hard to read and follow. Our opinion here at Webapper is that all who see our code should be able to fully understand what we did, how and why and even with the best of commenting multi-level nested includes are very hard to follow. Kind Regards - Mike Brunt Webapper Services LLC Web Site http://www.webapper.com Blog http://www.webapper.net Webapper Web Application Specialists -Original Message- From: Sean A Corfield [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 24, 2003 9:35 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: CFINCLUDES and RE: CFC Performance Best Practice On Monday, Mar 24, 2003, at 09:30 US/Pacific, Mike Brunt wrote: Am I right in my assumption that nested CFINCLUDES/CUSTOM TAGS cause performance issues in CFMX? I am fully aware that they are bad coding practice but just wanted to clarify this point. News to me... both that they supposedly cause performance issues and that they are bad coding practice... could you clarify for me? Sean A Corfield -- http://www.corfield.org/blog/ If you're not annoying somebody, you're not really alive. -- Margaret Atwood ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribeforumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in ColdFusion and related topics. http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
Re: CFINCLUDES and RE: CFC Performance Best Practice
On Monday, Mar 24, 2003, at 10:01 US/Pacific, Mike Brunt wrote: With regard to coding bad practice I have no doubts that multiple layers of nested includes-custom tags are bad practice as they make code very hard to read and follow. Hmm, it isn't the multiple layers that make code hard to read per se so it must something else. It is generally accepted best practice in software engineering to break code down into smaller, reusable chunks. In CF, that has historically translated into includes and custom tags (and now it's UDFs, custom tags and CFCs). If this is done properly, it should be very readable and easy to maintain. That means using good, clear naming and an 'obvious' decomposition into smaller parts. If you choose a bad decomposition then of course you get unreadable code! Sean A Corfield -- http://www.corfield.org/blog/ If you're not annoying somebody, you're not really alive. -- Margaret Atwood ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribeforumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in ColdFusion and related topics. http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
