RE: CrystalTech says ALL variables must be locked

[Dave Jones]

Jon,
Appreciate the response. However, I don't believe the problems 
were identical. Your's seemed to be CFMail sending out multiple 
copies of an email, while mine is file fragments randomly 
appearing in email headers and bodies. Thanks anyway for the thought.

Dave Jones
NetEffect


At 03:51 PM 7/7/03 -0400, you wrote:
Dave,

I have had the EXACT same problem. You can read through my thread I posted
many moons ago at:

http://webforums.macromedia.com/coldfusion/messageview.cfm?catid=7threadid=
275669highlight_key=y

We ended up writing our own mail tag implementation that we call CF_MAIL
like this:

CF_MAIL
 TO  = [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 FROM= [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 SUBJECT = Notes from tuesday
 replyTo = [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 cc  = [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 bcc = [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 fromname= Billy Bob
 type= TEXTIts not a feature, its a bug!/CF_MAIL

Ours doesn't spam. If anybody wants it I can check with the powers that be
and I can distribute the source with the accompanying Delphi program that
actually sends the mails.

-Jon

-Original Message-
From: Dave Jones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 12:23 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: CrystalTech says ALL variables must be locked


Hi,
I'm trying to resolve a problem for an application hosted at
CrystalTech which sporadically starts sending out corrupted email
when using CFMAIL.

CrystalTech is saying that the problem is because I'm not
CFLOCKing my variables, even though a) my application is not
using session or application variables; b) I've demonstrated the
problem with a test program that uses NO variables, and c) the
problem only occurs with CFMAIL, not CDONTS.

During the discussion, their techs insist that in a shared
hosting environment, ALL variables must be CFLOCKed, not just
shared variables (session, application, etc.). Is this right? I'm
well aware of the need to lock shared variables, but I've never
heard that non-shared variables must be locked as well.

Can anyone confirm whether this is true or not? (Any insight into
the CFMAIL problem would be appreciated as well)

Thanks,
Dave Jones
NetEffect



~|
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.
http://www.cfhosting.com

Unsubscribe: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4

RE: CrystalTech says ALL variables must be locked

[Dan Phillips]

 I dunno.  They may want to chime in again with details hint, hint.
;^)

If I did that, they would take me for a nice drive down by the river ;-)

 True... although 2003 also needs a little more oomph.  I'm assuming
that's why all the hosts I've seen so far are hosting the VMs on 2003
but running 2000 ON the VMs.  It could also be for other reasons, but
for now at least every host I've seen is running Win2000 on the VM.

That's what we are doing. I doubt we will have any Win2k3 installs on
the VPS until Red Sky is available. 

As far as pre-beta, we did that ourselves. We have about 20-25 clients
running live production sites and no troubles to speak of. The only
issue that comes up often is a customer asking questions about how to
config IIS or add users. 

Dan Phillips
www.CFXHosting.com 
1-866-239-4678
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


-Original Message-
From: Jim Davis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Monday, July 07, 2003 5:02 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: CrystalTech says ALL variables must be locked


 I'll preface this by saying that I have no experience using 
 virtualization in a production environment, yet, although I use it a 
 lot for testing and other non-production uses.
 
  At the very least there's licensing issues - there may also be 
  hardware issues - remember that you must find drivers/ packages 
  for the emulated hardware, not the physical hardware.
 
 I've yet to encounter this as a problem. Typically, the virtualization

 layer takes care of this for you - providing drivers for the virtual 
 hardware for
 the OS to use. In a production server environment, what hardware would
you
 need that isn't already supported? In addition, because the same
virtual
 hardware would be used no matter what the underlying hardware
actually
 was, this should simplify things a bit.

I just don't know.  I use VPC 5 extensively on my machine locally, but
I'm not sure how it would work in a production hosting environment or
what the procedures/problems could be.  There are things like
performance probes from infrastructure components and such - I'm not
sure how they work.

For example Local Director has a the ability to see how busy a server
is and to check its status.  I would assume other infrastructure gear
does the same thing (up-time monitors and such).  If they all work at
the IP level then they should work just fine, if they don't then I'm not
sure.

  The folks from CFX Hosting have already indicated that they had to 
  do some massaging - for example determining a way to let the end 
  use reboot the system.
 
 I don't really understand what this would entail. From within VMware, 
 this doesn't require any massaging at all. You just connect like you

 would to any server, and shutdown however your OS allows. But in any 
 case, this is the kind of problem that you'd only have to solve once, 
 and once solved, it wouldn't be an issue for future deployments, I 
 imagine.

I dunno.  They may want to chime in again with details hint, hint.
;^)

The issue would be solved and done with as you say - but initially would
also raise the price a bit as the hosts try and recoup their product
development costs.  Development and testing of a
solution/package/toolset can be expensive.

This is why I think that Windows VPS will stay at the level they're at
($200/month) for a while (6 months to a year) and then start to come in
price as the hosting toolsets are refined and finalized.

  Even with that supporting 100 machines is ALWAYS harder than 10 if 
  only for the fact that no matter how much you try to standardize 
  something is always going to come up
  - and with 100 machines it's that much more likely.
 
  (Our facilities team support 40-100 dedicated servers -
  all standardized. More machines means more work even if you take 
  advantage of short cuts and tool sets.)
 
 My Unix admin friends would disagree, although I suspect that the 
 truth lies somewhere between - keep in mind, too, that these 
 machines would be simple, compared to machines used to host a bunch 
 of virtual servers.

I think it would have to.  Machines ARE all different even if you try to
configure them the same.  Heck, even if you buy the same brand model all
at once you may end up with different OEM NICs and video processors.

But generally when you're taking about a large number of machines you're
talking about a cross section of at least three generations.  We have,
for example 8-way SMP Databases sittings sitting next to 5 year-old
Pentium Pro 200 Web servers.

Cloning machines and such sounds great (and it is) but it's not the 50
machines that worked that cost the money, it's one that didn't.  Beyond
that you have other headaches with many machines: firewall and router
configuration and other infrastructure items for example that aren't
easily automated.

I'm also not sure how simple the machines would be comparatively.
Specifically I'm not sure that they're simpler for the hoster: all of
the plans I've seen has the VPS tied

RE: CrystalTech says ALL variables must be locked

[Dave Watts]

I'll preface this by saying that I have no experience using virtualization
in a production environment, yet, although I use it a lot for testing and
other non-production uses.

 At the very least there's licensing issues - there may also 
 be hardware issues - remember that you must find drivers/
 packages for the emulated hardware, not the physical hardware.

I've yet to encounter this as a problem. Typically, the virtualization layer
takes care of this for you - providing drivers for the virtual hardware for
the OS to use. In a production server environment, what hardware would you
need that isn't already supported? In addition, because the same virtual
hardware would be used no matter what the underlying hardware actually
was, this should simplify things a bit.

 The folks from CFX Hosting have already indicated that they 
 had to do some massaging - for example determining a way 
 to let the end use reboot the system.

I don't really understand what this would entail. From within VMware, this
doesn't require any massaging at all. You just connect like you would to
any server, and shutdown however your OS allows. But in any case, this is
the kind of problem that you'd only have to solve once, and once solved, it
wouldn't be an issue for future deployments, I imagine.

 But do those automation support VMs yet?  (I don't know.)

Yes. The whole point of the VM is that, in all respects that matter, it's
indistinguishable from a real machine. You can use SMS, scripts, and
third-party tools with Windows VMs, and you can use things like apt-get with
Linux VMs.

 Even with that supporting 100 machines is ALWAYS harder 
 than 10 if only for the fact that no matter how much you 
 try to standardize something is always going to come up 
 - and with 100 machines it's that much more likely.
 
 (Our facilities team support 40-100 dedicated servers - 
 all standardized. More machines means more work even if 
 you take advantage of short cuts and tool sets.)

My Unix admin friends would disagree, although I suspect that the truth lies
somewhere between - keep in mind, too, that these machines would be
simple, compared to machines used to host a bunch of virtual servers.

 Also I'm unclear as to the mechanics here... if a VPS breaks 
 down nad has to be rebuilt how does that affect other VPSs 
 running on the same physical machine?

It shouldn't affect them at all. It should be as simple, in most cases, as
copying a file, then restarting the virtual OS. I imagine in practice it
might be a bit more complex.

 I also agree that using cheaper versions of software is 
 a HUGE plus - but this does seem to be a benefit only 
 for CF. Needing to license separate OSes and tools may 
 very well override that savings (at least on windows).

In general, I agree, and think that we'll see more use of virtualization
with Linux - that's where it's been most successful so far, anyway. But with
the introduction of the Web Edition of Windows Server 2003, which is a
little over $300, the OS cost is less of a factor even with Windows.

 I'm really not arguing the point with you - I think that 
 VPS are great and will revolutionize the hosting industry.  
 But I also think there are cost and other benefits to 
 application isolation that may be attractive to some users.

I think so, too, but I think that, in the long run, those users won't be in
the shared hosting environment but rather in the enterprise, where failover
and redundancy are big issues.

Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
http://www.figleaf.com/
voice: (202) 797-5496
fax: (202) 797-5444

~|
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.
http://www.cfhosting.com

Unsubscribe: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4

RE: CrystalTech says ALL variables must be locked

[Jon Block]

Dave,

I have had the EXACT same problem. You can read through my thread I posted
many moons ago at:

http://webforums.macromedia.com/coldfusion/messageview.cfm?catid=7threadid=
275669highlight_key=y

We ended up writing our own mail tag implementation that we call CF_MAIL
like this:

CF_MAIL
TO  = [EMAIL PROTECTED]
FROM= [EMAIL PROTECTED]
SUBJECT = Notes from tuesday
replyTo = [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc  = [EMAIL PROTECTED]
bcc = [EMAIL PROTECTED]
fromname= Billy Bob
type= TEXTIts not a feature, its a bug!/CF_MAIL

Ours doesn't spam. If anybody wants it I can check with the powers that be
and I can distribute the source with the accompanying Delphi program that
actually sends the mails.

-Jon

-Original Message-
From: Dave Jones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 12:23 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: CrystalTech says ALL variables must be locked


Hi,
I'm trying to resolve a problem for an application hosted at
CrystalTech which sporadically starts sending out corrupted email
when using CFMAIL.

CrystalTech is saying that the problem is because I'm not
CFLOCKing my variables, even though a) my application is not
using session or application variables; b) I've demonstrated the
problem with a test program that uses NO variables, and c) the
problem only occurs with CFMAIL, not CDONTS.

During the discussion, their techs insist that in a shared
hosting environment, ALL variables must be CFLOCKed, not just
shared variables (session, application, etc.). Is this right? I'm
well aware of the need to lock shared variables, but I've never
heard that non-shared variables must be locked as well.

Can anyone confirm whether this is true or not? (Any insight into
the CFMAIL problem would be appreciated as well)

Thanks,
Dave Jones
NetEffect


~|
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.
http://www.cfhosting.com

Unsubscribe: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4

RE: CrystalTech says ALL variables must be locked

[Jim Davis]

 I'll preface this by saying that I have no experience using virtualization
 in a production environment, yet, although I use it a lot for testing and
 other non-production uses.
 
  At the very least there's licensing issues - there may also
  be hardware issues - remember that you must find drivers/
  packages for the emulated hardware, not the physical hardware.
 
 I've yet to encounter this as a problem. Typically, the virtualization
 layer
 takes care of this for you - providing drivers for the virtual hardware
 for
 the OS to use. In a production server environment, what hardware would you
 need that isn't already supported? In addition, because the same virtual
 hardware would be used no matter what the underlying hardware actually
 was, this should simplify things a bit.

I just don't know.  I use VPC 5 extensively on my machine locally, but I'm
not sure how it would work in a production hosting environment or what the
procedures/problems could be.  There are things like performance probes from
infrastructure components and such - I'm not sure how they work.

For example Local Director has a the ability to see how busy a server is
and to check its status.  I would assume other infrastructure gear does the
same thing (up-time monitors and such).  If they all work at the IP level
then they should work just fine, if they don't then I'm not sure.

  The folks from CFX Hosting have already indicated that they
  had to do some massaging - for example determining a way
  to let the end use reboot the system.
 
 I don't really understand what this would entail. From within VMware, this
 doesn't require any massaging at all. You just connect like you would to
 any server, and shutdown however your OS allows. But in any case, this is
 the kind of problem that you'd only have to solve once, and once solved,
 it
 wouldn't be an issue for future deployments, I imagine.

I dunno.  They may want to chime in again with details hint, hint.  ;^)

The issue would be solved and done with as you say - but initially would
also raise the price a bit as the hosts try and recoup their product
development costs.  Development and testing of a solution/package/toolset
can be expensive.

This is why I think that Windows VPS will stay at the level they're at
($200/month) for a while (6 months to a year) and then start to come in
price as the hosting toolsets are refined and finalized.

  Even with that supporting 100 machines is ALWAYS harder
  than 10 if only for the fact that no matter how much you
  try to standardize something is always going to come up
  - and with 100 machines it's that much more likely.
 
  (Our facilities team support 40-100 dedicated servers -
  all standardized. More machines means more work even if
  you take advantage of short cuts and tool sets.)
 
 My Unix admin friends would disagree, although I suspect that the truth
 lies
 somewhere between - keep in mind, too, that these machines would be
 simple, compared to machines used to host a bunch of virtual servers.

I think it would have to.  Machines ARE all different even if you try to
configure them the same.  Heck, even if you buy the same brand model all at
once you may end up with different OEM NICs and video processors.

But generally when you're taking about a large number of machines you're
talking about a cross section of at least three generations.  We have, for
example 8-way SMP Databases sittings sitting next to 5 year-old Pentium Pro
200 Web servers.

Cloning machines and such sounds great (and it is) but it's not the 50
machines that worked that cost the money, it's one that didn't.  Beyond that
you have other headaches with many machines: firewall and router
configuration and other infrastructure items for example that aren't easily
automated.

I'm also not sure how simple the machines would be comparatively.
Specifically I'm not sure that they're simpler for the hoster: all of the
plans I've seen has the VPS tied with remote SQL Server and Mail services -
so it seems like the user configuration would be about the same (setting up
a virtual server is not a hard task in any system really).

You'd still have to create the same user accounts quota and such with
hosting.

  Also I'm unclear as to the mechanics here... if a VPS breaks
  down nad has to be rebuilt how does that affect other VPSs
  running on the same physical machine?
 
 It shouldn't affect them at all. It should be as simple, in most cases, as
 copying a file, then restarting the virtual OS. I imagine in practice it
 might be a bit more complex.

I'm not sure how it works (or how most hosts are using it).  I know, for
example, that if you use a virtual disk file then you can just copy a file.
I thought, however that if you used a physical disk partition for
performance (which I assume a host would do) that the VM's file system was
not maintained as a simple file.

I just don't know.

Although it also brings up the question of how to best back up and restore
VMs.  Do you 

RE: CrystalTech says ALL variables must be locked

[Dave Watts]

 For example Local Director has a the ability to see 
 how busy a server is and to check its status. I would 
 assume other infrastructure gear does the same thing 
 (up-time monitors and such). If they all work at the 
 IP level then they should work just fine, if they don't 
 then I'm not sure.

These things all work over some sort of networking or other (TCP/IP, named
pipes over IP, and so forth).

 I think it would have to. Machines ARE all different 
 even if you try to configure them the same. Heck, even 
 if you buy the same brand model all at once you may end 
 up with different OEM NICs and video processors.

That's another place where virtualization shines - the virtual machines all
have the same hardware, even when deployed on different physical servers.
I've done this before, actually - moved a virtual machine from one physical
machine to another without any trouble.

 I'm also not sure how simple the machines would be 
 comparatively. Specifically I'm not sure that they're 
 simpler for the hoster: all of the plans I've seen has 
 the VPS tied with remote SQL Server and Mail services -
 so it seems like the user configuration would be about 
 the same (setting up a virtual server is not a hard task 
 in any system really).
 
 You'd still have to create the same user accounts quota 
 and such with hosting.

The virtual machines would be simpler, in that they would have simpler web
server and application server configurations, and simpler security policies
- not having to protect one developer from another, as is necessary in a
shared hosting environment.

User account quotas would easily be handled by the VM size itself, which can
be set on creation.

 I'm not sure how it works (or how most hosts are using it).  
 I know, for example, that if you use a virtual disk file 
 then you can just copy a file. I thought, however that if 
 you used a physical disk partition for performance (which 
 I assume a host would do) that the VM's file system was
 not maintained as a simple file.

 I just don't know.

 Although it also brings up the question of how to best back 
 up and restore VMs. Do you copy the whole disk as you would 
 any other machine or just the VM's virtual disk image (the 
 latter would make back ups easier, but restores less granular)?

I don't know all the details of how VM best practices would play out,
either. I imagine those practices might vary depending on the goal of
virtualization in a specific situation.

 True... although 2003 also needs a little more oomph. I'm 
 assuming that's why all the hosts I've seen so far are 
 hosting the VMs on 2003 but running 2000 ON the VMs. It 
 could also be for other reasons, but for now at least
 every host I've seen is running Win2000 on the VM.

Having played around quite a bit with Windows Server 2003, I suspect that
the reasons are a bit different: licensing and activation.

 Lastly I'm also very confused as to what's out there NOW.  
 I've seen several hosts now offer Windows VPS solutions 
 but I'm not sure how they are. As far as I can tell MS 
 hasn't released the software beyond a not for production 
 pre-beta release. It's definitely not part of Windows2003.
 
 Is everybody that's spending the cash for this solution 
 actually unknowing pre-beta testers? Will they get hosed 
 when the official release comes out? Emulated hardware is 
 still hardware to the system - every version of VPC so far 
 has changed it enough that the guest OSes have had to go
 through hoops installing new device drivers - with all of 
 the downtime and rebooting that implies. It's like taking 
 a hard disk out of one machine and putting it in another 
 - not pretty and it sometimes leaves the machine unstable.

I have very little experience with the Connectix VPC product on which MSVS
is based, beyond helping to support some of our Mac users, but my experience
with VMware has been that there's little difference between VM emulated
hardware between versions. The MS product is still in pre-beta, whatever
that means, and I don't know what'll happen when it's finally released.
VMware has a couple of server virtualization products available now, but I
don't know if they're being used by hosting providers - my guess is that
they're not, due to their cost.

 I'm just not sure how all of this will play out.

Of course not! It's The Mysterious Future ®!

Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
http://www.figleaf.com/
voice: (202) 797-5496
fax: (202) 797-5444

~|
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: CrystalTech says ALL variables must be locked

[Jim Davis]

 -Original Message-
 From: Dave Watts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sent: Monday, July 07, 2003 6:19 PM
 To: CF-Talk
 Subject: RE: CrystalTech says ALL variables must be locked
 
  I think it would have to. Machines ARE all different
  even if you try to configure them the same. Heck, even
  if you buy the same brand model all at once you may end
  up with different OEM NICs and video processors.
 
 That's another place where virtualization shines - the virtual machines
 all
 have the same hardware, even when deployed on different physical
 servers.
 I've done this before, actually - moved a virtual machine from one
 physical
 machine to another without any trouble.

So have I - at least when using the same version of the VM software.  But
moving versions is a totally different story (at least for VPC).

The REALY cool thing about this is that I can create a virtual server
(Windows 2000 on VPC 5 for example) on my home PC on a portable harddrive.
I can work on it for a while, then take the drive to work and continue there
with no changes whatsoever.

Very slick.

I've also taken to doing all my testing and QA on VPCs - when the QA team
needs to recreate the problem I can copy the VPC image to a shared server
and they can see it exactly as I did.

The latter situation pushes the legality of the licensing however... but
it's damn useful.  ;^)
 
  I'm also not sure how simple the machines would be
  comparatively. Specifically I'm not sure that they're
  simpler for the hoster: all of the plans I've seen has
  the VPS tied with remote SQL Server and Mail services -
  so it seems like the user configuration would be about
  the same (setting up a virtual server is not a hard task
  in any system really).
 
  You'd still have to create the same user accounts quota
  and such with hosting.
 
 The virtual machines would be simpler, in that they would have simpler web
 server and application server configurations, and simpler security
 policies
 - not having to protect one developer from another, as is necessary in a
 shared hosting environment.
 
 User account quotas would easily be handled by the VM size itself, which
 can
 be set on creation.

But only for the web - not for the other services expected (and currently
being offered).  Email and SQL server quotas are still set outside for
example.

   I'm not sure how it works (or how most hosts are using it).
  I know, for example, that if you use a virtual disk file
  then you can just copy a file. I thought, however that if
  you used a physical disk partition for performance (which
  I assume a host would do) that the VM's file system was
  not maintained as a simple file.
 
  I just don't know.
 
  Although it also brings up the question of how to best back
  up and restore VMs. Do you copy the whole disk as you would
  any other machine or just the VM's virtual disk image (the
  latter would make back ups easier, but restores less granular)?
 
 I don't know all the details of how VM best practices would play out,
 either. I imagine those practices might vary depending on the goal of
 virtualization in a specific situation.
 
  True... although 2003 also needs a little more oomph. I'm
  assuming that's why all the hosts I've seen so far are
  hosting the VMs on 2003 but running 2000 ON the VMs. It
  could also be for other reasons, but for now at least
  every host I've seen is running Win2000 on the VM.
 
 Having played around quite a bit with Windows Server 2003, I suspect that
 the reasons are a bit different: licensing and activation.

Just curious: how are they that different? If you're legal on Win2000 then
licensing doesn't seem to differ (byond that fact that 2003 Web Edition is
far cheaper).  If you're cheating on licensing then it's really just as easy
to do with 2003 as it is with 2000.
 
  Lastly I'm also very confused as to what's out there NOW.
  I've seen several hosts now offer Windows VPS solutions
  but I'm not sure how they are. As far as I can tell MS
  hasn't released the software beyond a not for production
  pre-beta release. It's definitely not part of Windows2003.
 
  Is everybody that's spending the cash for this solution
  actually unknowing pre-beta testers? Will they get hosed
  when the official release comes out? Emulated hardware is
  still hardware to the system - every version of VPC so far
  has changed it enough that the guest OSes have had to go
  through hoops installing new device drivers - with all of
  the downtime and rebooting that implies. It's like taking
  a hard disk out of one machine and putting it in another
  - not pretty and it sometimes leaves the machine unstable.
 
 I have very little experience with the Connectix VPC product on which MSVS
 is based, beyond helping to support some of our Mac users, but my
 experience
 with VMware has been that there's little difference between VM emulated
 hardware between versions. The MS product is still in pre-beta, whatever
 that means, and I don't know

RE: CrystalTech says ALL variables must be locked

[Jim Davis]

 -Original Message-
 From: Dave Watts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sent: Saturday, July 05, 2003 11:24 PM
 To: CF-Talk
 Subject: RE: CrystalTech says ALL variables must be locked
 
  I mentioned that as well actually... and an isolated
  instance of CF is MUCH cheaper to install and maintain
  than a VPS.
 
 I'm not convinced on either of these points. It's very easy to deploy
 virtual servers, and you don't have to worry about one of them screwing up
 the rest.


It's very easy after a somewhat involved gearing up phase (deciding what
goes in the image and so forth).

After that you've definitely got more costs with the VPS - licensing issues
(which you've already mentioned) for OSs and support software and
configuration issues.

A simple example is that with multiple isolated instances of CFMX running I
can apply an updater once, OS service packs once and so forth - with a VPS
you'd have to do this for each VM.

An isolated instance of CFMX is much less likely to cross-over and cause
problems in other accounts than a shared instance and a VPS is even less
likely.  But the maintenance cost for the VPS is higher simply because, in
effect, you're managing multiple machines.

Don't get me wrong - I love the idea of a VPS (and hope that they come down
in price to where regular schmoes like me can afford them).  But they are
definitely, for now, a more expensive option - although not a grossly more
expensive option.

I would think that a host, after crunching the numbers could offer an
isolated instance of CFMX for somewhat more than a shared instance and a VPS
for somewhat more than that - I don't think that the range is all that
great.

I'm seeing low high-end shared accounts (on Windows) for a range of $70-$99
a month and VPS accounts (on Windows) for $200 a month.  I would think that
an isolated application server option would fit between the two nicely.

Jim Davis

~|
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.
http://www.cfhosting.com

Unsubscribe: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4

RE: CrystalTech says ALL variables must be locked

[Dave Watts]

 It's very easy after a somewhat involved gearing up phase 
 (deciding what goes in the image and so forth).

I don't see how that's any more complicated than setting up a single
dedicated server without virtualization.

 After that you've definitely got more costs with the VPS - 
 licensing issues (which you've already mentioned) for OSs 
 and support software and configuration issues.

I agree that software costs may be higher, but in general, software costs
are a small amount of the total cost of a deployed application. In the web
hosting world, of course, this may be less true than elsewhere, I suppose.

 A simple example is that with multiple isolated instances 
 of CFMX running I can apply an updater once, OS service 
 packs once and so forth - with a VPS you'd have to do this 
 for each VM.
 
 An isolated instance of CFMX is much less likely to cross-
 over and cause problems in other accounts than a shared 
 instance and a VPS is even less likely. But the maintenance 
 cost for the VPS is higher simply because, in effect, you're 
 managing multiple machines.

There are plenty of tools in both the Windows and Unix world for maintaining
multiple machines. With those tools, it's not significantly more difficult
to maintain 100 machines than it is to maintain 10. In addition, from a
security standpoint, it's got to be significantly easier to deploy virtual
machines; you don't have to worry about untrusted users, and everyone can
have administrative rights in their own VM.

On the flip side, if a machine breaks down, you can redeploy it in a few
minutes from your source image, without causing downtime to anyone else; the
individual pieces of software within the image can often be simpler (in the
case of CF, you could use the regular versions of CFMX instead of CFMX for
J2EE), and if an update would break your code, you can more easily forego
it.

Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
http://www.figleaf.com/
voice: (202) 797-5496
fax: (202) 797-5444

~|
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: CrystalTech says ALL variables must be locked

[Jim Davis]

 -Original Message-
 From: Dave Watts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2003 11:13 AM
 To: CF-Talk
 Subject: RE: CrystalTech says ALL variables must be locked
 
  It's very easy after a somewhat involved gearing up phase
  (deciding what goes in the image and so forth).
 
 I don't see how that's any more complicated than setting up a single
 dedicated server without virtualization.

At the very least there's licensing issues - there may also be hardware
issues - remember that you must find drivers/packages for the emulated
hardware, not the physical hardware.

The folks from CFX Hosting have already indicated that they had to do some
massaging - for example determining a way to let the end use reboot the
system.

I'm not saying it's hard, just that it's not (quite) as easy as a dedicated
machine install.

 
  After that you've definitely got more costs with the VPS -
  licensing issues (which you've already mentioned) for OSs
  and support software and configuration issues.
 
 I agree that software costs may be higher, but in general, software costs
 are a small amount of the total cost of a deployed application. In the web
 hosting world, of course, this may be less true than elsewhere, I suppose.

I think that it is - but still maintenance is a larger cost, I think.  But,
at least after the initial gearing up phase, there's very little
development costs in the hosting world.

  A simple example is that with multiple isolated instances
  of CFMX running I can apply an updater once, OS service
  packs once and so forth - with a VPS you'd have to do this
  for each VM.
 
  An isolated instance of CFMX is much less likely to cross-
  over and cause problems in other accounts than a shared
  instance and a VPS is even less likely. But the maintenance
  cost for the VPS is higher simply because, in effect, you're
  managing multiple machines.
 
 There are plenty of tools in both the Windows and Unix world for
 maintaining
 multiple machines. With those tools, it's not significantly more difficult
 to maintain 100 machines than it is to maintain 10. In addition, from a
 security standpoint, it's got to be significantly easier to deploy virtual
 machines; you don't have to worry about untrusted users, and everyone can
 have administrative rights in their own VM.

But do those automation support VMs yet?  (I don't know.)

If the tools are there then you're most likely correct - but if they're
still coming...

Even with that supporting 100 machines is ALWAYS harder than 10 if only for
the fact that no matter how much you try to standardize something is always
going to come up - and with 100 machines it's that much more likely.

(Our facilities team support 40-100 dedicated servers - all standardized.
More machines means more work even if you take advantage of short cuts and
tool sets.)

 On the flip side, if a machine breaks down, you can redeploy it in a few
 minutes from your source image, without causing downtime to anyone else;
 the
 individual pieces of software within the image can often be simpler (in
 the
 case of CF, you could use the regular versions of CFMX instead of CFMX
 for
 J2EE), and if an update would break your code, you can more easily forego
 it.

Absolutely true... however if a software machine breaks down then it's
definitely a software problem.  And software problems are always more
expensive and difficult to fix than hardware problems (in terms of time and
diagnostics).

Also I'm unclear as to the mechanics here... if a VPS breaks down nad has to
be rebuilt how does that affect other VPSs running on the same physical
machine?

I also agree that using cheaper versions of software is a HUGE plus - but
this does seem to be a benefit only for CF.  Needing to license separate
OSes and tools may very well override that savings (at least on windows).

I think this is why most hosts seem to be offering shared services with VPSs
- you still have shared metrics and SQL server in all the plans I've seen
for example.

I'm really not arguing the point with you - I think that VPS are great and
will revolutionize the hosting industry.  But I also think there are cost
and other benefits to application isolation that may be attractive to some
users.

Jim Davis

~|
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: CrystalTech says ALL variables must be locked

[Dave Watts]

 I mentioned that as well actually... and an isolated 
 instance of CF is MUCH cheaper to install and maintain 
 than a VPS.

I'm not convinced on either of these points. It's very easy to deploy
virtual servers, and you don't have to worry about one of them screwing up
the rest.

Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
http://www.figleaf.com/
voice: (202) 797-5496
fax: (202) 797-5444

~|
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: CrystalTech says ALL variables must be locked

[Raymond Camden]

It's bunk. They are saying you need to lock local variables? I'd worry
about their support staff if they thought that.


===
Raymond Camden, ColdFusion Jedi Master for Mindseye, Inc
(www.mindseye.com)
Member of Team Macromedia (http://www.macromedia.com/go/teammacromedia)

Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Blog : www.camdenfamily.com/morpheus/blog
Yahoo IM : morpheus

My ally is the Force, and a powerful ally it is. - Yoda 

 -Original Message-
 From: Dave Jones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 10:23 AM
 To: CF-Talk
 Subject: CrystalTech says ALL variables must be locked
 
 
 Hi,
 I'm trying to resolve a problem for an application hosted at 
 CrystalTech which sporadically starts sending out corrupted email 
 when using CFMAIL.
 
 CrystalTech is saying that the problem is because I'm not 
 CFLOCKing my variables, even though a) my application is not 
 using session or application variables; b) I've demonstrated the 
 problem with a test program that uses NO variables, and c) the 
 problem only occurs with CFMAIL, not CDONTS.
 
 During the discussion, their techs insist that in a shared 
 hosting environment, ALL variables must be CFLOCKed, not just 
 shared variables (session, application, etc.). Is this right? I'm 
 well aware of the need to lock shared variables, but I've never 
 heard that non-shared variables must be locked as well.
 
 Can anyone confirm whether this is true or not? (Any insight into 
 the CFMAIL problem would be appreciated as well)
 

~|
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: CrystalTech says ALL variables must be locked

[Dan Phillips]

We prefer that clients use them but do not force the issue. 

Is the application sending email when it's not supposed to or just
sending garbage when a message is supposed to go out?

Dan Phillips
www.CFXHosting.com 
1-866-239-4678
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

-Original Message-
From: Raymond Camden [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 12:19 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: CrystalTech says ALL variables must be locked


It's bunk. They are saying you need to lock local variables? I'd worry
about their support staff if they thought that.


===
Raymond Camden, ColdFusion Jedi Master for Mindseye, Inc
(www.mindseye.com)
Member of Team Macromedia (http://www.macromedia.com/go/teammacromedia)

Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Blog : www.camdenfamily.com/morpheus/blog
Yahoo IM : morpheus

My ally is the Force, and a powerful ally it is. - Yoda 

 -Original Message-
 From: Dave Jones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 10:23 AM
 To: CF-Talk
 Subject: CrystalTech says ALL variables must be locked
 
 
 Hi,
 I'm trying to resolve a problem for an application hosted at
 CrystalTech which sporadically starts sending out corrupted email 
 when using CFMAIL.
 
 CrystalTech is saying that the problem is because I'm not
 CFLOCKing my variables, even though a) my application is not 
 using session or application variables; b) I've demonstrated the 
 problem with a test program that uses NO variables, and c) the 
 problem only occurs with CFMAIL, not CDONTS.
 
 During the discussion, their techs insist that in a shared
 hosting environment, ALL variables must be CFLOCKed, not just 
 shared variables (session, application, etc.). Is this right? I'm 
 well aware of the need to lock shared variables, but I've never 
 heard that non-shared variables must be locked as well.
 
 Can anyone confirm whether this is true or not? (Any insight into
 the CFMAIL problem would be appreciated as well)
 


~|
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: CrystalTech says ALL variables must be locked

[Ben Doom]

And I'm wondering what kind of performance their shared servers are going to
get if they have their clients locking every variable.  Ugh.


--  Ben Doom
Programmer  General Lackey
Moonbow Software, Inc

: -Original Message-
: From: Raymond Camden [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
: Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 12:19 PM
: To: CF-Talk
: Subject: RE: CrystalTech says ALL variables must be locked
:
:
: It's bunk. They are saying you need to lock local variables? I'd worry
: about their support staff if they thought that.
:
: 
: ===
: Raymond Camden, ColdFusion Jedi Master for Mindseye, Inc
: (www.mindseye.com)
: Member of Team Macromedia (http://www.macromedia.com/go/teammacromedia)
:
: Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
: Blog : www.camdenfamily.com/morpheus/blog
: Yahoo IM : morpheus
:
: My ally is the Force, and a powerful ally it is. - Yoda
:
:  -Original Message-
:  From: Dave Jones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
:  Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 10:23 AM
:  To: CF-Talk
:  Subject: CrystalTech says ALL variables must be locked
: 
: 
:  Hi,
:  I'm trying to resolve a problem for an application hosted at
:  CrystalTech which sporadically starts sending out corrupted email
:  when using CFMAIL.
: 
:  CrystalTech is saying that the problem is because I'm not
:  CFLOCKing my variables, even though a) my application is not
:  using session or application variables; b) I've demonstrated the
:  problem with a test program that uses NO variables, and c) the
:  problem only occurs with CFMAIL, not CDONTS.
: 
:  During the discussion, their techs insist that in a shared
:  hosting environment, ALL variables must be CFLOCKed, not just
:  shared variables (session, application, etc.). Is this right? I'm
:  well aware of the need to lock shared variables, but I've never
:  heard that non-shared variables must be locked as well.
: 
:  Can anyone confirm whether this is true or not? (Any insight into
:  the CFMAIL problem would be appreciated as well)
: 
:
: 
~|
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: CrystalTech says ALL variables must be locked

[Raymond Camden]

 We prefer that clients use them but do not force the issue. 

Yea but you mean for shared variables, right? I assume you aren't
agreeing with CT and their statement that _local_ vars be locked (IF
that is what they meant - this all could be miscommunication).


===
Raymond Camden, ColdFusion Jedi Master for Mindseye, Inc
(www.mindseye.com)
Member of Team Macromedia (http://www.macromedia.com/go/teammacromedia)

Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Blog : www.camdenfamily.com/morpheus/blog
Yahoo IM : morpheus

My ally is the Force, and a powerful ally it is. - Yoda 

~|
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: CrystalTech says ALL variables must be locked

[Dan Phillips]

Yes shared variables. If not, other sites can steal them and it makes
for a very fun possible server crash. However, we have only had to tell
people to use CFLOCK if their site was not well coeded and they are
generating lots of traffic. 

I always take a look at server logs anyway before I ask a customer to
modify code like that. But, there may be other server issues with CT I'm
not aware of. Just taking a stab in the dark here. 

Dan Phillips
www.CFXHosting.com 
1-866-239-4678
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

-Original Message-
From: Raymond Camden [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 12:34 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: CrystalTech says ALL variables must be locked


 We prefer that clients use them but do not force the issue.

Yea but you mean for shared variables, right? I assume you aren't
agreeing with CT and their statement that _local_ vars be locked (IF
that is what they meant - this all could be miscommunication).


===
Raymond Camden, ColdFusion Jedi Master for Mindseye, Inc
(www.mindseye.com)
Member of Team Macromedia (http://www.macromedia.com/go/teammacromedia)

Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Blog : www.camdenfamily.com/morpheus/blog
Yahoo IM : morpheus

My ally is the Force, and a powerful ally it is. - Yoda 


~|
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: CrystalTech says ALL variables must be locked

[Dave Jones]

Dan,
The emails are going out when supposed to, but occasionally are 
scrambled with junk data, in both the header and body. Mail going 
out with CDONTS does not exhibit the problem. At some point, 
CFMAIL stopped working altogether, and when the service was 
restarted, the problem was gone.

However, CrystalTech continues to insist the problem was due to 
unlocked variables, so I'm concerned that the source of the 
problem has not been addressed and will reoccur.

Dave Jones
NetEffect


At 12:28 PM 7/3/03 -0400, you wrote:
We prefer that clients use them but do not force the issue.

Is the application sending email when it's not supposed to or just
sending garbage when a message is supposed to go out?

Dan Phillips
www.CFXHosting.com
1-866-239-4678
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

-Original Message-
From: Raymond Camden [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 12:19 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: CrystalTech says ALL variables must be locked


It's bunk. They are saying you need to lock local variables? I'd worry
about their support staff if they thought that.


===
Raymond Camden, ColdFusion Jedi Master for Mindseye, Inc
(www.mindseye.com)
Member of Team Macromedia (http://www.macromedia.com/go/teammacromedia)

Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Blog : www.camdenfamily.com/morpheus/blog
Yahoo IM : morpheus

My ally is the Force, and a powerful ally it is. - Yoda

  -Original Message-
  From: Dave Jones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 10:23 AM
  To: CF-Talk
  Subject: CrystalTech says ALL variables must be locked
 
 
  Hi,
  I'm trying to resolve a problem for an application hosted at
  CrystalTech which sporadically starts sending out corrupted email
  when using CFMAIL.
 
  CrystalTech is saying that the problem is because I'm not
  CFLOCKing my variables, even though a) my application is not
  using session or application variables; b) I've demonstrated the
  problem with a test program that uses NO variables, and c) the
  problem only occurs with CFMAIL, not CDONTS.
 
  During the discussion, their techs insist that in a shared
  hosting environment, ALL variables must be CFLOCKed, not just
  shared variables (session, application, etc.). Is this right? I'm
  well aware of the need to lock shared variables, but I've never
  heard that non-shared variables must be locked as well.
 
  Can anyone confirm whether this is true or not? (Any insight into
  the CFMAIL problem would be appreciated as well)
 



~|
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: CrystalTech says ALL variables must be locked

[Scott Brady]

-- Original Message --
From: Raymond Camden [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It's bunk. They are saying you need to lock local variables? I'd worry
about their support staff if they thought that.

I've had an experience with CT support recently where I could tell that some of their 
staff were obviously better than others.

I needed a mapping set up so that I could use CFCs and, in my support request, I even 
mentioned the exact CT knowledgebase article number I was referring to.

I kept going back and forth with the same guy, who kept saying it was set up, but I 
still couldn't use the mapping he said he set up.

After about 3 days, I got e-mail from another guy who said it looked like the wrong 
type of mapping was setup and he fixed it right away.

So, not all support staffers are created equal.  I'd suggest asking for someone else 
to confirm this suggestion (which makes NO sense).

I'm still quite pleased with CrystalTech, despite this one experience.

Scott Brady
http://www.scottbrady.net/

 
 
~|
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: CrystalTech says ALL variables must be locked

[Stephenie Hamilton]

Let me elaborate. We ask all customers to lock their shared scope
vars,(ie: session, application). But we do not in any way tell them to
lock non shared scope vars (ie: local, client etc).




~~
Stephenie Hamilton
Macromedia Certified ColdFusion Professional
CFXHosting





-Original Message-
From: Dan Phillips [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 12:29 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: CrystalTech says ALL variables must be locked


We prefer that clients use them but do not force the issue. 

Is the application sending email when it's not supposed to or just
sending garbage when a message is supposed to go out?

Dan Phillips
www.CFXHosting.com 
1-866-239-4678
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.493 / Virus Database: 292 - Release Date: 6/25/2003
 

~|
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: CrystalTech says ALL variables must be locked

[Dan Phillips]

What happends when you make a generic CFMAIL script? Does it send
normally?

Dan Phillips
www.CFXHosting.com 
1-866-239-4678
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

-Original Message-
From: Dave Jones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 1:20 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: CrystalTech says ALL variables must be locked


Dan,
The emails are going out when supposed to, but occasionally are 
scrambled with junk data, in both the header and body. Mail going 
out with CDONTS does not exhibit the problem. At some point, 
CFMAIL stopped working altogether, and when the service was 
restarted, the problem was gone.

However, CrystalTech continues to insist the problem was due to 
unlocked variables, so I'm concerned that the source of the 
problem has not been addressed and will reoccur.

Dave Jones
NetEffect


At 12:28 PM 7/3/03 -0400, you wrote:
We prefer that clients use them but do not force the issue.

Is the application sending email when it's not supposed to or just 
sending garbage when a message is supposed to go out?

Dan Phillips
www.CFXHosting.com
1-866-239-4678
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

-Original Message-
From: Raymond Camden [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 12:19 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: CrystalTech says ALL variables must be locked


It's bunk. They are saying you need to lock local variables? I'd worry 
about their support staff if they thought that.

===
=
===
Raymond Camden, ColdFusion Jedi Master for Mindseye, Inc
(www.mindseye.com)
Member of Team Macromedia (http://www.macromedia.com/go/teammacromedia)

Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Blog : www.camdenfamily.com/morpheus/blog
Yahoo IM : morpheus

My ally is the Force, and a powerful ally it is. - Yoda

  -Original Message-
  From: Dave Jones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 10:23 AM
  To: CF-Talk
  Subject: CrystalTech says ALL variables must be locked
 
 
  Hi,
  I'm trying to resolve a problem for an application hosted at 
  CrystalTech which sporadically starts sending out corrupted email 
  when using CFMAIL.
 
  CrystalTech is saying that the problem is because I'm not CFLOCKing 
  my variables, even though a) my application is not using session or 
  application variables; b) I've demonstrated the problem with a test 
  program that uses NO variables, and c) the problem only occurs with 
  CFMAIL, not CDONTS.
 
  During the discussion, their techs insist that in a shared hosting 
  environment, ALL variables must be CFLOCKed, not just shared 
  variables (session, application, etc.). Is this right? I'm well 
  aware of the need to lock shared variables, but I've never heard 
  that non-shared variables must be locked as well.
 
  Can anyone confirm whether this is true or not? (Any insight into 
  the CFMAIL problem would be appreciated as well)
 




~|
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: CrystalTech says ALL variables must be locked

[Dave Jones]

Dan,
During the time the problem was occurring, I created a test 
script that contained nothing but a CFMAIL tag and CDONTS script. 
No variables were used. The emal sent with the CFMAIL tag was 
corrupted, the email sent with CDONTS was fine.

Dave Jones
NetEffect


At 01:11 PM 7/3/03 -0400, you wrote:
What happends when you make a generic CFMAIL script? Does it send
normally?

Dan Phillips
www.CFXHosting.com
1-866-239-4678
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

-Original Message-
From: Dave Jones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 1:20 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: CrystalTech says ALL variables must be locked


Dan,
The emails are going out when supposed to, but occasionally are
scrambled with junk data, in both the header and body. Mail going
out with CDONTS does not exhibit the problem. At some point,
CFMAIL stopped working altogether, and when the service was
restarted, the problem was gone.

However, CrystalTech continues to insist the problem was due to
unlocked variables, so I'm concerned that the source of the
problem has not been addressed and will reoccur.

Dave Jones
NetEffect


At 12:28 PM 7/3/03 -0400, you wrote:
 We prefer that clients use them but do not force the issue.
 
 Is the application sending email when it's not supposed to or just
 sending garbage when a message is supposed to go out?
 
 Dan Phillips
 www.CFXHosting.com
 1-866-239-4678
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
 -Original Message-
 From: Raymond Camden [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 12:19 PM
 To: CF-Talk
 Subject: RE: CrystalTech says ALL variables must be locked
 
 
 It's bunk. They are saying you need to lock local variables? I'd worry
 about their support staff if they thought that.
 
 ===
 =
 ===
 Raymond Camden, ColdFusion Jedi Master for Mindseye, Inc
 (www.mindseye.com)
 Member of Team Macromedia (http://www.macromedia.com/go/teammacromedia)
 
 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Blog : www.camdenfamily.com/morpheus/blog
 Yahoo IM : morpheus
 
 My ally is the Force, and a powerful ally it is. - Yoda
 
   -Original Message-
   From: Dave Jones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
   Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 10:23 AM
   To: CF-Talk
   Subject: CrystalTech says ALL variables must be locked
  
  
   Hi,
   I'm trying to resolve a problem for an application hosted at
   CrystalTech which sporadically starts sending out corrupted email
   when using CFMAIL.
  
   CrystalTech is saying that the problem is because I'm not CFLOCKing
   my variables, even though a) my application is not using session or
   application variables; b) I've demonstrated the problem with a test
   program that uses NO variables, and c) the problem only occurs with
   CFMAIL, not CDONTS.
  
   During the discussion, their techs insist that in a shared hosting
   environment, ALL variables must be CFLOCKed, not just shared
   variables (session, application, etc.). Is this right? I'm well
   aware of the need to lock shared variables, but I've never heard
   that non-shared variables must be locked as well.
  
   Can anyone confirm whether this is true or not? (Any insight into
   the CFMAIL problem would be appreciated as well)
  
 
 
 


~|
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: CrystalTech says ALL variables must be locked

[Dan Phillips]

Really? That deffinately sounds like CFMAIL is the issue but I've never
heard of it doing that? Is this MX? Anyone else ever heard of that
happening?

Dan Phillips
www.CFXHosting.com 
1-866-239-4678
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

-Original Message-
From: Dave Jones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 1:59 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: CrystalTech says ALL variables must be locked


Dan,
During the time the problem was occurring, I created a test 
script that contained nothing but a CFMAIL tag and CDONTS script. 
No variables were used. The emal sent with the CFMAIL tag was 
corrupted, the email sent with CDONTS was fine.

Dave Jones
NetEffect


At 01:11 PM 7/3/03 -0400, you wrote:
What happends when you make a generic CFMAIL script? Does it send 
normally?

Dan Phillips
www.CFXHosting.com
1-866-239-4678
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

-Original Message-
From: Dave Jones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 1:20 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: CrystalTech says ALL variables must be locked


Dan,
The emails are going out when supposed to, but occasionally are 
scrambled with junk data, in both the header and body. Mail going out 
with CDONTS does not exhibit the problem. At some point, CFMAIL stopped

working altogether, and when the service was restarted, the problem was

gone.

However, CrystalTech continues to insist the problem was due to 
unlocked variables, so I'm concerned that the source of the problem has

not been addressed and will reoccur.

Dave Jones
NetEffect


At 12:28 PM 7/3/03 -0400, you wrote:
 We prefer that clients use them but do not force the issue.
 
 Is the application sending email when it's not supposed to or just 
 sending garbage when a message is supposed to go out?
 
 Dan Phillips
 www.CFXHosting.com
 1-866-239-4678
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
 -Original Message-
 From: Raymond Camden [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 12:19 PM
 To: CF-Talk
 Subject: RE: CrystalTech says ALL variables must be locked
 
 
 It's bunk. They are saying you need to lock local variables? I'd 
 worry about their support staff if they thought that.
 
 =
 ==
 =
 ===
 Raymond Camden, ColdFusion Jedi Master for Mindseye, Inc
 (www.mindseye.com)
 Member of Team Macromedia
(http://www.macromedia.com/go/teammacromedia)
 
 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Blog : www.camdenfamily.com/morpheus/blog
 Yahoo IM : morpheus
 
 My ally is the Force, and a powerful ally it is. - Yoda
 
   -Original Message-
   From: Dave Jones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
   Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 10:23 AM
   To: CF-Talk
   Subject: CrystalTech says ALL variables must be locked
  
  
   Hi,
   I'm trying to resolve a problem for an application hosted at 
   CrystalTech which sporadically starts sending out corrupted email 
   when using CFMAIL.
  
   CrystalTech is saying that the problem is because I'm not 
   CFLOCKing my variables, even though a) my application is not using

   session or application variables; b) I've demonstrated the problem

   with a test program that uses NO variables, and c) the problem 
   only occurs with CFMAIL, not CDONTS.
  
   During the discussion, their techs insist that in a shared hosting

   environment, ALL variables must be CFLOCKed, not just shared 
   variables (session, application, etc.). Is this right? I'm well 
   aware of the need to lock shared variables, but I've never heard 
   that non-shared variables must be locked as well.
  
   Can anyone confirm whether this is true or not? (Any insight into 
   the CFMAIL problem would be appreciated as well)
  
 
 
 



~|
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: CrystalTech says ALL variables must be locked

[Ben Forta]

 If not, other sites can steal them

I have no idea what that even means!

Regardless, it is worth noting that problems caused by the lack of
locking (CF4.x and CF5) can be slow and gradual. On a shared box you may
see memory corruption problems (do to the lack of locking) even if your
app has no shared scope variables at all. How? If another app on the box
uses shared scopes and fails to lock code. All CF apps share the same
instance.

Which is why CFMX on J2EE is so compelling. Each app runs in its own
safe little world.

--- Ben



-Original Message-
From: Dan Phillips [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 12:47 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: CrystalTech says ALL variables must be locked


Yes shared variables. If not, other sites can steal them and it makes
for a very fun possible server crash. However, we have only had to tell
people to use CFLOCK if their site was not well coeded and they are
generating lots of traffic. 

I always take a look at server logs anyway before I ask a customer to
modify code like that. But, there may be other server issues with CT I'm
not aware of. Just taking a stab in the dark here. 

Dan Phillips
www.CFXHosting.com 
1-866-239-4678
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

-Original Message-
From: Raymond Camden [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 12:34 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: CrystalTech says ALL variables must be locked


 We prefer that clients use them but do not force the issue.

Yea but you mean for shared variables, right? I assume you aren't
agreeing with CT and their statement that _local_ vars be locked (IF
that is what they meant - this all could be miscommunication).


===
Raymond Camden, ColdFusion Jedi Master for Mindseye, Inc
(www.mindseye.com)
Member of Team Macromedia (http://www.macromedia.com/go/teammacromedia)

Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Blog : www.camdenfamily.com/morpheus/blog
Yahoo IM : morpheus

My ally is the Force, and a powerful ally it is. - Yoda 



~|
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: CrystalTech says ALL variables must be locked

[Dave Jones]

Scott,
I've been with CT for several years now and until this last 
episode have had nothing but good experiences. However, the past 
few days have been a completely different story. My emails to 
support are often ignored and the techs I've communicated with 
all repeat the same story (i.e. the problem is due to my not 
locking all my variables). No one will acknowledge the 
possibility that the problem is due to some other cause. The 
impression I'm getting is that they consider my attempts to 
resolve this to be the rantings of an ignorant CF coder not 
worthy of further attention.

Dave Jones
NetEffect


At 09:59 AM 7/3/03 -0700, you wrote:
-- Original Message --
From: Raymond Camden [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 It's bunk. They are saying you need to lock local variables? I'd worry
 about their support staff if they thought that.

I've had an experience with CT support recently where I could 
tell that some of their staff were obviously better than others.

I needed a mapping set up so that I could use CFCs and, in my 
support request, I even mentioned the exact CT knowledgebase 
article number I was referring to.

I kept going back and forth with the same guy, who kept saying 
it was set up, but I still couldn't use the mapping he said he set up.

After about 3 days, I got e-mail from another guy who said it 
looked like the wrong type of mapping was setup and he fixed it right away.

So, not all support staffers are created equal.  I'd suggest 
asking for someone else to confirm this suggestion (which makes NO sense).

I'm still quite pleased with CrystalTech, despite this one experience.

Scott Brady
http://www.scottbrady.net/




~|
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.
http://www.cfhosting.com

Unsubscribe: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4

Re: CrystalTech says ALL variables must be locked

[Michael T. Tangorre]

switch hosting providers... the ball is in your court. If you get the BS
runaround, say see ya later.
I used hostmysite exclusively now and have never had any problems with them.

Mike


- Original Message - 
From: Dave Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 2:12 PM
Subject: RE: CrystalTech says ALL variables must be locked


 Scott,
 I've been with CT for several years now and until this last
 episode have had nothing but good experiences. However, the past
 few days have been a completely different story. My emails to
 support are often ignored and the techs I've communicated with
 all repeat the same story (i.e. the problem is due to my not
 locking all my variables). No one will acknowledge the
 possibility that the problem is due to some other cause. The
 impression I'm getting is that they consider my attempts to
 resolve this to be the rantings of an ignorant CF coder not
 worthy of further attention.

 Dave Jones
 NetEffect


 At 09:59 AM 7/3/03 -0700, you wrote:
 -- Original Message --
 From: Raymond Camden [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  It's bunk. They are saying you need to lock local variables? I'd worry
  about their support staff if they thought that.
 
 I've had an experience with CT support recently where I could
 tell that some of their staff were obviously better than others.
 
 I needed a mapping set up so that I could use CFCs and, in my
 support request, I even mentioned the exact CT knowledgebase
 article number I was referring to.
 
 I kept going back and forth with the same guy, who kept saying
 it was set up, but I still couldn't use the mapping he said he set up.
 
 After about 3 days, I got e-mail from another guy who said it
 looked like the wrong type of mapping was setup and he fixed it right
away.
 
 So, not all support staffers are created equal.  I'd suggest
 asking for someone else to confirm this suggestion (which makes NO
sense).
 
 I'm still quite pleased with CrystalTech, despite this one experience.
 
 Scott Brady
 http://www.scottbrady.net/
 
 
 
 
 
~|
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.
http://www.cfhosting.com

Unsubscribe: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4

RE: CrystalTech says ALL variables must be locked

[Raymond Camden]

I think they are referring to this way of 'stealing' data:

cfapplication name=some other guys apps
cfset myCopy = duplicate(application)
cfapplication name=original name of application

All this will do is copy over the other app's application data. I
_think_ I wrote a UDF for this on cflib.org.

Defintely _NOT_ a big fat hairy deal.


===
Raymond Camden, ColdFusion Jedi Master for Mindseye, Inc
(www.mindseye.com)
Member of Team Macromedia (http://www.macromedia.com/go/teammacromedia)

Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Blog : www.camdenfamily.com/morpheus/blog
Yahoo IM : morpheus

My ally is the Force, and a powerful ally it is. - Yoda 

 -Original Message-
 From: Ben Forta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 11:39 AM
 To: CF-Talk
 Subject: RE: CrystalTech says ALL variables must be locked
 
 
  If not, other sites can steal them
 
 I have no idea what that even means!
 
 Regardless, it is worth noting that problems caused by the 
 lack of locking (CF4.x and CF5) can be slow and gradual. On a 
 shared box you may see memory corruption problems (do to the 
 lack of locking) even if your app has no shared scope 
 variables at all. How? If another app on the box uses shared 
 scopes and fails to lock code. All CF apps share the same instance.
 
 Which is why CFMX on J2EE is so compelling. Each app runs in 
 its own safe little world.
 
 --- Ben

~|
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: CrystalTech says ALL variables must be locked

[Ben Forta]

I assumed that too. But locking will not prevent that. Nothing will. If
two apps have the same application name then they share scopes, simple
as that.

Unless you are running multiple CFs, that is.

--- Ben



-Original Message-
From: Raymond Camden [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 2:03 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: CrystalTech says ALL variables must be locked


I think they are referring to this way of 'stealing' data:

cfapplication name=some other guys apps
cfset myCopy = duplicate(application)
cfapplication name=original name of application

All this will do is copy over the other app's application data. I
_think_ I wrote a UDF for this on cflib.org.

Defintely _NOT_ a big fat hairy deal.


===
Raymond Camden, ColdFusion Jedi Master for Mindseye, Inc
(www.mindseye.com)
Member of Team Macromedia (http://www.macromedia.com/go/teammacromedia)

Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Blog : www.camdenfamily.com/morpheus/blog
Yahoo IM : morpheus

My ally is the Force, and a powerful ally it is. - Yoda 

 -Original Message-
 From: Ben Forta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 11:39 AM
 To: CF-Talk
 Subject: RE: CrystalTech says ALL variables must be locked
 
 
  If not, other sites can steal them
 
 I have no idea what that even means!
 
 Regardless, it is worth noting that problems caused by the
 lack of locking (CF4.x and CF5) can be slow and gradual. On a 
 shared box you may see memory corruption problems (do to the 
 lack of locking) even if your app has no shared scope 
 variables at all. How? If another app on the box uses shared 
 scopes and fails to lock code. All CF apps share the same instance.
 
 Which is why CFMX on J2EE is so compelling. Each app runs in
 its own safe little world.
 
 --- Ben


~|
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: CrystalTech says ALL variables must be locked

[Thane Sherrington]

At 10:19 AM 7/3/03 -0700, Dave Jones wrote:
Dan,
The emails are going out when supposed to, but occasionally are
scrambled with junk data, in both the header and body. Mail going
out with CDONTS does not exhibit the problem. At some point,
CFMAIL stopped working altogether, and when the service was
restarted, the problem was gone.

I use CrystalTech as well, and I have never been happy with CFMAIL (though 
I've never had the problem you are describing.)  I send primarily with 
CDONTS and it seems to work much better.  As for the locking thing - I'd 
say the support guy you got wasn't big into CF and is misreading something 
on locking.

T

Tired of your bookmarks/favourites being limited to one computer?  Move 
them to the Net!
www.stuffbythane.com/webfavourites makes it easy to keep all your 
favourites in one place and
access them from any computer that's attached to the Internet. 

~|
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: CrystalTech says ALL variables must be locked

[Matthew Small]

So are you saying that all I have to do to get another application's
information is to do that copy?  Isn't this a security hole that those
of us on shared servers and saving CC numbers need to worry about?

- Matthew Small

-Original Message-
From: Ben Forta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 2:10 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: CrystalTech says ALL variables must be locked


I assumed that too. But locking will not prevent that. Nothing will. If
two apps have the same application name then they share scopes, simple
as that.

Unless you are running multiple CFs, that is.

--- Ben



-Original Message-
From: Raymond Camden [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 2:03 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: CrystalTech says ALL variables must be locked


I think they are referring to this way of 'stealing' data:

cfapplication name=some other guys apps
cfset myCopy = duplicate(application)
cfapplication name=original name of application

All this will do is copy over the other app's application data. I
_think_ I wrote a UDF for this on cflib.org.

Defintely _NOT_ a big fat hairy deal.


===
Raymond Camden, ColdFusion Jedi Master for Mindseye, Inc
(www.mindseye.com)
Member of Team Macromedia (http://www.macromedia.com/go/teammacromedia)

Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Blog : www.camdenfamily.com/morpheus/blog
Yahoo IM : morpheus

My ally is the Force, and a powerful ally it is. - Yoda 

 -Original Message-
 From: Ben Forta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 11:39 AM
 To: CF-Talk
 Subject: RE: CrystalTech says ALL variables must be locked
 
 
  If not, other sites can steal them
 
 I have no idea what that even means!
 
 Regardless, it is worth noting that problems caused by the lack of 
 locking (CF4.x and CF5) can be slow and gradual. On a shared box you 
 may see memory corruption problems (do to the lack of locking) even if

 your app has no shared scope variables at all. How? If another app on 
 the box uses shared scopes and fails to lock code. All CF apps share 
 the same instance.
 
 Which is why CFMX on J2EE is so compelling. Each app runs in its own 
 safe little world.
 
 --- Ben



~|
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: CrystalTech says ALL variables must be locked

[Thane Sherrington]

At 12:46 PM 7/3/03 -0400, Dan Phillips wrote:
Yes shared variables. If not, other sites can steal them and it makes
for a very fun possible server crash. However, we have only had to tell
people to use CFLOCK if their site was not well coeded and they are
generating lots of traffic.

How do you mean steal them?

T

Tired of your bookmarks/favourites being limited to one computer?  Move 
them to the Net!
www.stuffbythane.com/webfavourites makes it easy to keep all your 
favourites in one place and
access them from any computer that's attached to the Internet. 

~|
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.
http://www.cfhosting.com

Unsubscribe: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4

RE: CrystalTech says ALL variables must be locked

[Raymond Camden]

Exactly. If you are on an ISP and worry about stuff like that, your only
option is to just store the stuff encrypted... just don't store the key
in the application scope as well. ;)


===
Raymond Camden, ColdFusion Jedi Master for Mindseye, Inc
(www.mindseye.com)
Member of Team Macromedia (http://www.macromedia.com/go/teammacromedia)

Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Blog : www.camdenfamily.com/morpheus/blog
Yahoo IM : morpheus

My ally is the Force, and a powerful ally it is. - Yoda 

 -Original Message-
 From: Ben Forta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 12:10 PM
 To: CF-Talk
 Subject: RE: CrystalTech says ALL variables must be locked
 
 
 I assumed that too. But locking will not prevent that. 
 Nothing will. If two apps have the same application name then 
 they share scopes, simple as that.
 
 Unless you are running multiple CFs, that is.
 
 --- Ben

~|
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.
http://www.cfhosting.com

Unsubscribe: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4

RE: CrystalTech says ALL variables must be locked

[Thane Sherrington]

At 02:09 PM 7/3/03 -0400, Ben Forta wrote:
I assumed that too. But locking will not prevent that. Nothing will. If
two apps have the same application name then they share scopes, simple
as that.

I hadn't thought of that - would it be prudent when running CF5 on a shared 
server to give your applications unusual names?

T

Tired of your bookmarks/favourites being limited to one computer?  Move 
them to the Net!
www.stuffbythane.com/webfavourites makes it easy to keep all your 
favourites in one place and
access them from any computer that's attached to the Internet. 

~|
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: CrystalTech says ALL variables must be locked

[Jim Davis]

 -Original Message-
 From: Dave Jones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 12:23 PM
 To: CF-Talk
 Subject: CrystalTech says ALL variables must be locked
 
 Hi,
 I'm trying to resolve a problem for an application hosted at
 CrystalTech which sporadically starts sending out corrupted email
 when using CFMAIL.
 
 CrystalTech is saying that the problem is because I'm not
 CFLOCKing my variables, even though a) my application is not
 using session or application variables; b) I've demonstrated the
 problem with a test program that uses NO variables, and c) the
 problem only occurs with CFMAIL, not CDONTS.
 
 During the discussion, their techs insist that in a shared
 hosting environment, ALL variables must be CFLOCKed, not just
 shared variables (session, application, etc.). Is this right? I'm
 well aware of the need to lock shared variables, but I've never
 heard that non-shared variables must be locked as well.

Nope that's a dirty fib.  Only Session, Application and Server variables
have to be locked (and then really only in CF 5 and below if stability is
your concern).

I'd request a technician with some CF horse sense.

However you might want to attempt to lock your mail process in a named lock
to serialize it and see if your problem goes away.

Jim Davis


~|
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: CrystalTech says ALL variables must be locked

[Jim Davis]

 -Original Message-
 From: Ben Doom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 12:30 PM
 To: CF-Talk
 Subject: RE: CrystalTech says ALL variables must be locked
 
 And I'm wondering what kind of performance their shared servers are going
 to
 get if they have their clients locking every variable.  Ugh.

They don't (I host several sites with them).

I think that Dave may have just gotten a bad tech... I've been lucky in that
when I've problems they've seemed on the ball.

Jim Davis


~|
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: CrystalTech says ALL variables must be locked

[Raymond Camden]

Why would you save a CC number in the application scope? Typically this
would be session specific. The code sample I work would allow you to
copy a session, but only YOUR session, ie, the data YOU helped make on
the other site.


===
Raymond Camden, ColdFusion Jedi Master for Mindseye, Inc
(www.mindseye.com)
Member of Team Macromedia (http://www.macromedia.com/go/teammacromedia)

Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Blog : www.camdenfamily.com/morpheus/blog
Yahoo IM : morpheus

My ally is the Force, and a powerful ally it is. - Yoda 

 -Original Message-
 From: Matthew Small [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 12:19 PM
 To: CF-Talk
 Subject: RE: CrystalTech says ALL variables must be locked
 
 
 So are you saying that all I have to do to get another 
 application's information is to do that copy?  Isn't this a 
 security hole that those of us on shared servers and saving 
 CC numbers need to worry about?
 
 - Matthew Small
 

~|
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: CrystalTech says ALL variables must be locked

[Dave Jones]

Is this MX?

CF5

Dave Jones
NetEffect


Anyone else ever heard of that
happening?

Dan Phillips
www.CFXHosting.com
1-866-239-4678
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

-Original Message-
From: Dave Jones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 1:59 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: CrystalTech says ALL variables must be locked


Dan,
During the time the problem was occurring, I created a test
script that contained nothing but a CFMAIL tag and CDONTS script.
No variables were used. The emal sent with the CFMAIL tag was
corrupted, the email sent with CDONTS was fine.

Dave Jones
NetEffect


At 01:11 PM 7/3/03 -0400, you wrote:
 What happends when you make a generic CFMAIL script? Does it send
 normally?
 
 Dan Phillips
 www.CFXHosting.com
 1-866-239-4678
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
 -Original Message-
 From: Dave Jones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 1:20 PM
 To: CF-Talk
 Subject: RE: CrystalTech says ALL variables must be locked
 
 
 Dan,
 The emails are going out when supposed to, but occasionally are
 scrambled with junk data, in both the header and body. Mail going out
 with CDONTS does not exhibit the problem. At some point, CFMAIL stopped

 working altogether, and when the service was restarted, the problem was

 gone.
 
 However, CrystalTech continues to insist the problem was due to
 unlocked variables, so I'm concerned that the source of the problem has

 not been addressed and will reoccur.
 
 Dave Jones
 NetEffect
 
 
 At 12:28 PM 7/3/03 -0400, you wrote:
  We prefer that clients use them but do not force the issue.
  
  Is the application sending email when it's not supposed to or just
  sending garbage when a message is supposed to go out?
  
  Dan Phillips
  www.CFXHosting.com
  1-866-239-4678
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  
  -Original Message-
  From: Raymond Camden [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 12:19 PM
  To: CF-Talk
  Subject: RE: CrystalTech says ALL variables must be locked
  
  
  It's bunk. They are saying you need to lock local variables? I'd
  worry about their support staff if they thought that.
  
  =
  ==
  =
  ===
  Raymond Camden, ColdFusion Jedi Master for Mindseye, Inc
  (www.mindseye.com)
  Member of Team Macromedia
(http://www.macromedia.com/go/teammacromedia)
  
  Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Blog : www.camdenfamily.com/morpheus/blog
  Yahoo IM : morpheus
  
  My ally is the Force, and a powerful ally it is. - Yoda
  
-Original Message-
From: Dave Jones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 10:23 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: CrystalTech says ALL variables must be locked
   
   
Hi,
I'm trying to resolve a problem for an application hosted at
CrystalTech which sporadically starts sending out corrupted email
when using CFMAIL.
   
CrystalTech is saying that the problem is because I'm not
CFLOCKing my variables, even though a) my application is not using

session or application variables; b) I've demonstrated the problem

with a test program that uses NO variables, and c) the problem
only occurs with CFMAIL, not CDONTS.
   
During the discussion, their techs insist that in a shared hosting

environment, ALL variables must be CFLOCKed, not just shared
variables (session, application, etc.). Is this right? I'm well
aware of the need to lock shared variables, but I've never heard
that non-shared variables must be locked as well.
   
Can anyone confirm whether this is true or not? (Any insight into
the CFMAIL problem would be appreciated as well)
   
  
  
  
 
 


~|
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.
http://www.cfhosting.com

Unsubscribe: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4

RE: CrystalTech says ALL variables must be locked

[Raymond Camden]

 
 At 02:09 PM 7/3/03 -0400, Ben Forta wrote:
 I assumed that too. But locking will not prevent that. 
 Nothing will. If 
 two apps have the same application name then they share 
 scopes, simple 
 as that.
 
 I hadn't thought of that - would it be prudent when running 
 CF5 on a shared 
 server to give your applications unusual names?
 

Depends. If you don't disable cffile/cfdirectory, I can look around and
find your application name. If you enable client variables, I'm pretty
sure I can search for that in the registry. If your app ever threw any
errors, I could look in the log file for the app name. In general, I
just wouldn't store the sensitive info in RAM.


===
Raymond Camden, ColdFusion Jedi Master for Mindseye, Inc
(www.mindseye.com)
Member of Team Macromedia (http://www.macromedia.com/go/teammacromedia)

Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Blog : www.camdenfamily.com/morpheus/blog
Yahoo IM : morpheus

My ally is the Force, and a powerful ally it is. - Yoda 

~|
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: CrystalTech says ALL variables must be locked

[Ben Forta]

Your CF instance is shared. Stuff in SERVER (which you generally should
not be using anyway) is shared by all applications. Stuff in APPLCIATION
is shared by all instances of the same CFAPPLICATION NAME. Stuff in
SESSION is shared by all requests containing the same session
identifiers. So yes, if you use the same CFAPPLCIATION NAME then those
scopes will be shared.

But, I assume (hope) you are not storing credit cards numbers in
APPLICATION variables. That kind of stuff is likely in a database, and
databases (data sources, actually) can indeed be locked down by using
sandboxes. That is exactly what sandboxes are designed to do. If you are
on a shared box then insist that your ISP has each application in a
sandbox. If they don't or won't, dump them immediately!

--- Ben





-Original Message-
From: Matthew Small [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 2:19 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: CrystalTech says ALL variables must be locked


So are you saying that all I have to do to get another application's
information is to do that copy?  Isn't this a security hole that those
of us on shared servers and saving CC numbers need to worry about?

- Matthew Small

-Original Message-
From: Ben Forta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 2:10 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: CrystalTech says ALL variables must be locked


I assumed that too. But locking will not prevent that. Nothing will. If
two apps have the same application name then they share scopes, simple
as that.

Unless you are running multiple CFs, that is.

--- Ben



-Original Message-
From: Raymond Camden [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 2:03 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: CrystalTech says ALL variables must be locked


I think they are referring to this way of 'stealing' data:

cfapplication name=some other guys apps
cfset myCopy = duplicate(application)
cfapplication name=original name of application

All this will do is copy over the other app's application data. I
_think_ I wrote a UDF for this on cflib.org.

Defintely _NOT_ a big fat hairy deal.


===
Raymond Camden, ColdFusion Jedi Master for Mindseye, Inc
(www.mindseye.com)
Member of Team Macromedia (http://www.macromedia.com/go/teammacromedia)

Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Blog : www.camdenfamily.com/morpheus/blog
Yahoo IM : morpheus

My ally is the Force, and a powerful ally it is. - Yoda 

 -Original Message-
 From: Ben Forta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 11:39 AM
 To: CF-Talk
 Subject: RE: CrystalTech says ALL variables must be locked
 
 
  If not, other sites can steal them
 
 I have no idea what that even means!
 
 Regardless, it is worth noting that problems caused by the lack of
 locking (CF4.x and CF5) can be slow and gradual. On a shared box you 
 may see memory corruption problems (do to the lack of locking) even if

 your app has no shared scope variables at all. How? If another app on
 the box uses shared scopes and fails to lock code. All CF apps share 
 the same instance.
 
 Which is why CFMX on J2EE is so compelling. Each app runs in its own
 safe little world.
 
 --- Ben




~|
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.
http://www.cfhosting.com

Unsubscribe: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4

RE: CrystalTech says ALL variables must be locked

[Ben Forta]

Definitely prudent. ISPs should probably assign application names, and
make sure that they are being used properly.

Having said that, shared hosting is not a bad thing, but it is
inherently risky (this is nothing to do with CF, if you were using ASP
or PHP or Perl or whatever it would be just as risky). Sites that need
high security and high availability and complete control should not be
using shared hosting, they need dedicated hosting (or a dedicated CF
instance on a shared box).

--- Ben




-Original Message-
From: Thane Sherrington [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 2:16 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: CrystalTech says ALL variables must be locked


At 02:09 PM 7/3/03 -0400, Ben Forta wrote:
I assumed that too. But locking will not prevent that. Nothing will. If

two apps have the same application name then they share scopes, simple 
as that.

I hadn't thought of that - would it be prudent when running CF5 on a
shared 
server to give your applications unusual names?

T

Tired of your bookmarks/favourites being limited to one computer?  Move 
them to the Net!
www.stuffbythane.com/webfavourites makes it easy to keep all your 
favourites in one place and
access them from any computer that's attached to the Internet. 


~|
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.
http://www.cfhosting.com

Unsubscribe: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4

RE: CrystalTech says ALL variables must be locked

[Matthew Small]

You're right, I'm not storing this stuff in an application scope.  I was
thinking that it was stealing all of the variables in an application - I
overthought this problem.

Thanks,
Matt Small

-Original Message-
From: Ben Forta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 2:25 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: CrystalTech says ALL variables must be locked


Your CF instance is shared. Stuff in SERVER (which you generally should
not be using anyway) is shared by all applications. Stuff in APPLCIATION
is shared by all instances of the same CFAPPLICATION NAME. Stuff in
SESSION is shared by all requests containing the same session
identifiers. So yes, if you use the same CFAPPLCIATION NAME then those
scopes will be shared.

But, I assume (hope) you are not storing credit cards numbers in
APPLICATION variables. That kind of stuff is likely in a database, and
databases (data sources, actually) can indeed be locked down by using
sandboxes. That is exactly what sandboxes are designed to do. If you are
on a shared box then insist that your ISP has each application in a
sandbox. If they don't or won't, dump them immediately!

--- Ben





-Original Message-
From: Matthew Small [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 2:19 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: CrystalTech says ALL variables must be locked


So are you saying that all I have to do to get another application's
information is to do that copy?  Isn't this a security hole that those
of us on shared servers and saving CC numbers need to worry about?

- Matthew Small

-Original Message-
From: Ben Forta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 2:10 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: CrystalTech says ALL variables must be locked


I assumed that too. But locking will not prevent that. Nothing will. If
two apps have the same application name then they share scopes, simple
as that.

Unless you are running multiple CFs, that is.

--- Ben



-Original Message-
From: Raymond Camden [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 2:03 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: CrystalTech says ALL variables must be locked


I think they are referring to this way of 'stealing' data:

cfapplication name=some other guys apps
cfset myCopy = duplicate(application)
cfapplication name=original name of application

All this will do is copy over the other app's application data. I
_think_ I wrote a UDF for this on cflib.org.

Defintely _NOT_ a big fat hairy deal.


===
Raymond Camden, ColdFusion Jedi Master for Mindseye, Inc
(www.mindseye.com)
Member of Team Macromedia (http://www.macromedia.com/go/teammacromedia)

Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Blog : www.camdenfamily.com/morpheus/blog
Yahoo IM : morpheus

My ally is the Force, and a powerful ally it is. - Yoda 

 -Original Message-
 From: Ben Forta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 11:39 AM
 To: CF-Talk
 Subject: RE: CrystalTech says ALL variables must be locked
 
 
  If not, other sites can steal them
 
 I have no idea what that even means!
 
 Regardless, it is worth noting that problems caused by the lack of 
 locking (CF4.x and CF5) can be slow and gradual. On a shared box you 
 may see memory corruption problems (do to the lack of locking) even if

 your app has no shared scope variables at all. How? If another app on 
 the box uses shared scopes and fails to lock code. All CF apps share 
 the same instance.
 
 Which is why CFMX on J2EE is so compelling. Each app runs in its own 
 safe little world.
 
 --- Ben





~|
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: CrystalTech says ALL variables must be locked

[Thane Sherrington]

At 01:25 PM 7/3/03 -0500, Raymond Camden wrote:
Depends. If you don't disable cffile/cfdirectory, I can look around and
find your application name. If you enable client variables, I'm pretty
sure I can search for that in the registry. If your app ever threw any
errors, I could look in the log file for the app name. In general, I
just wouldn't store the sensitive info in RAM.

I was less concerned about data being read (storing sensitive data in 
anything other than local variables seems risky to me) and more concerned 
about variables being overwritten.  I was thinking that if I used an 
unusual application name, then the chance of having my variables 
overwritten would be lessened.

T

Tired of your bookmarks/favourites being limited to one computer?  Move 
them to the Net!
www.stuffbythane.com/webfavourites makes it easy to keep all your 
favourites in one place and
access them from any computer that's attached to the Internet. 

~|
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.
http://www.cfhosting.com

Unsubscribe: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4

RE: CrystalTech says ALL variables must be locked

[Mark A. Kruger - CFG]

Ok... so how is locking ap vars going to prevent that??

-Original Message-
From: Raymond Camden [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 1:03 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: CrystalTech says ALL variables must be locked


I think they are referring to this way of 'stealing' data:

cfapplication name=some other guys apps
cfset myCopy = duplicate(application)
cfapplication name=original name of application

All this will do is copy over the other app's application data. I
_think_ I wrote a UDF for this on cflib.org.

Defintely _NOT_ a big fat hairy deal.


===
Raymond Camden, ColdFusion Jedi Master for Mindseye, Inc
(www.mindseye.com)
Member of Team Macromedia (http://www.macromedia.com/go/teammacromedia)

Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Blog : www.camdenfamily.com/morpheus/blog
Yahoo IM : morpheus

My ally is the Force, and a powerful ally it is. - Yoda

 -Original Message-
 From: Ben Forta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 11:39 AM
 To: CF-Talk
 Subject: RE: CrystalTech says ALL variables must be locked


  If not, other sites can steal them

 I have no idea what that even means!

 Regardless, it is worth noting that problems caused by the
 lack of locking (CF4.x and CF5) can be slow and gradual. On a
 shared box you may see memory corruption problems (do to the
 lack of locking) even if your app has no shared scope
 variables at all. How? If another app on the box uses shared
 scopes and fails to lock code. All CF apps share the same instance.

 Which is why CFMX on J2EE is so compelling. Each app runs in
 its own safe little world.

 --- Ben


~|
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: CrystalTech says ALL variables must be locked

[Mark A. Kruger - CFG]

You should NOT be saving any user data in the application scope - that's not
what it's for anyway.

-Original Message-
From: Matthew Small [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 1:19 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: CrystalTech says ALL variables must be locked


So are you saying that all I have to do to get another application's
information is to do that copy?  Isn't this a security hole that those
of us on shared servers and saving CC numbers need to worry about?

- Matthew Small

-Original Message-
From: Ben Forta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 2:10 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: CrystalTech says ALL variables must be locked


I assumed that too. But locking will not prevent that. Nothing will. If
two apps have the same application name then they share scopes, simple
as that.

Unless you are running multiple CFs, that is.

--- Ben



-Original Message-
From: Raymond Camden [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 2:03 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: CrystalTech says ALL variables must be locked


I think they are referring to this way of 'stealing' data:

cfapplication name=some other guys apps
cfset myCopy = duplicate(application)
cfapplication name=original name of application

All this will do is copy over the other app's application data. I
_think_ I wrote a UDF for this on cflib.org.

Defintely _NOT_ a big fat hairy deal.


===
Raymond Camden, ColdFusion Jedi Master for Mindseye, Inc
(www.mindseye.com)
Member of Team Macromedia (http://www.macromedia.com/go/teammacromedia)

Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Blog : www.camdenfamily.com/morpheus/blog
Yahoo IM : morpheus

My ally is the Force, and a powerful ally it is. - Yoda

 -Original Message-
 From: Ben Forta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 11:39 AM
 To: CF-Talk
 Subject: RE: CrystalTech says ALL variables must be locked


  If not, other sites can steal them

 I have no idea what that even means!

 Regardless, it is worth noting that problems caused by the lack of
 locking (CF4.x and CF5) can be slow and gradual. On a shared box you
 may see memory corruption problems (do to the lack of locking) even if

 your app has no shared scope variables at all. How? If another app on
 the box uses shared scopes and fails to lock code. All CF apps share
 the same instance.

 Which is why CFMX on J2EE is so compelling. Each app runs in its own
 safe little world.

 --- Ben




~|
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: CrystalTech says ALL variables must be locked

[Jim Davis]

Well - since CF doesn't have an end of session event I store all user
information in a customized application scope.  I manage the time outs
myself so that I can collect the information gathered during the visit
(clickstream, client resolution, etc).

Jim Davis

 -Original Message-
 From: Raymond Camden [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 2:23 PM
 To: CF-Talk
 Subject: RE: CrystalTech says ALL variables must be locked
 
 Why would you save a CC number in the application scope? Typically this
 would be session specific. The code sample I work would allow you to
 copy a session, but only YOUR session, ie, the data YOU helped make on
 the other site.
 
 
 ===
 Raymond Camden, ColdFusion Jedi Master for Mindseye, Inc
 (www.mindseye.com)
 Member of Team Macromedia (http://www.macromedia.com/go/teammacromedia)
 
 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Blog : www.camdenfamily.com/morpheus/blog
 Yahoo IM : morpheus
 
 My ally is the Force, and a powerful ally it is. - Yoda
 
  -Original Message-
  From: Matthew Small [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 12:19 PM
  To: CF-Talk
  Subject: RE: CrystalTech says ALL variables must be locked
 
 
  So are you saying that all I have to do to get another
  application's information is to do that copy?  Isn't this a
  security hole that those of us on shared servers and saving
  CC numbers need to worry about?
 
  - Matthew Small
 
 
 
~|
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.
http://www.cfhosting.com

Unsubscribe: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4

RE: CrystalTech says ALL variables must be locked

[Raymond Camden]

No one said it would, I believe.


===
Raymond Camden, ColdFusion Jedi Master for Mindseye, Inc
(www.mindseye.com)
Member of Team Macromedia (http://www.macromedia.com/go/teammacromedia)

Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Blog : www.camdenfamily.com/morpheus/blog
Yahoo IM : morpheus

My ally is the Force, and a powerful ally it is. - Yoda 

 -Original Message-
 From: Mark A. Kruger - CFG [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 1:24 PM
 To: CF-Talk
 Subject: RE: CrystalTech says ALL variables must be locked
 
 
 Ok... so how is locking ap vars going to prevent that??
 
 -Original Message-
 From: Raymond Camden [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 1:03 PM
 To: CF-Talk
 Subject: RE: CrystalTech says ALL variables must be locked
 
 
 I think they are referring to this way of 'stealing' data:
 

~|
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: CrystalTech says ALL variables must be locked

[Scott Brady]

-- Original Message --
From: Dave Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I've been with CT for several years now and until this last 
episode have had nothing but good experiences. However, the past 
few days have been a completely different story. My emails to 
support are often ignored and the techs I've communicated with 
all repeat the same story (i.e. the problem is due to my not 
locking all my variables). No one will acknowledge the 
possibility that the problem is due to some other cause. The 
impression I'm getting is that they consider my attempts to 
resolve this to be the rantings of an ignorant CF coder not 
worthy of further attention.

If they're still insisting that EVERY variable be locked, they should be able to point 
to a reference (preferrably on Macromedia.com) saying this should be done. If not, I'm 
sure you can find a Best Practices reference of your own.

I'm still going with the theory (hopefully) that you've gotten one or two bad tech 
people. I really hope so.

Scott

Scott Brady
http://www.scottbrady.net/
 
 
~|
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: CrystalTech says ALL variables must be locked

[Ben Forta]

Dave,

Thanks for starting this thread. I know it ended up in a whole different
place, but it got me thinking, and fed my blog today. :-)

http://www.forta.com/blog/index.cfm?mode=eentry=855

--- Ben



-Original Message-
From: Dave Jones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 12:23 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: CrystalTech says ALL variables must be locked


Hi,
I'm trying to resolve a problem for an application hosted at 
CrystalTech which sporadically starts sending out corrupted email 
when using CFMAIL.

CrystalTech is saying that the problem is because I'm not 
CFLOCKing my variables, even though a) my application is not 
using session or application variables; b) I've demonstrated the 
problem with a test program that uses NO variables, and c) the 
problem only occurs with CFMAIL, not CDONTS.

During the discussion, their techs insist that in a shared 
hosting environment, ALL variables must be CFLOCKed, not just 
shared variables (session, application, etc.). Is this right? I'm 
well aware of the need to lock shared variables, but I've never 
heard that non-shared variables must be locked as well.

Can anyone confirm whether this is true or not? (Any insight into 
the CFMAIL problem would be appreciated as well)

Thanks,
Dave Jones
NetEffect 


~|
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: CrystalTech says ALL variables must be locked

[Jochem van Dieten]

Ben Forta wrote:
 
 Regardless, it is worth noting that problems caused by the lack of
 locking (CF4.x and CF5) can be slow and gradual. On a shared box you may
 see memory corruption problems (do to the lack of locking) even if your
 app has no shared scope variables at all. How? If another app on the box
 uses shared scopes and fails to lock code. All CF apps share the same
 instance.
 
 Which is why CFMX on J2EE is so compelling. Each app runs in its own
 safe little world.

If only running a few hundred instances wouldn't require a mainframe...

Jochem



~|
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.
http://www.cfhosting.com

Unsubscribe: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4

RE: CrystalTech says ALL variables must be locked

[Ben Forta]

Point taken! :-)

Yes, there is an 80MB or so hit per instance. It is not for every little
site, no question about it.






-Original Message-
From: Jochem van Dieten [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 4:39 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: CrystalTech says ALL variables must be locked


Ben Forta wrote:
 
 Regardless, it is worth noting that problems caused by the lack of 
 locking (CF4.x and CF5) can be slow and gradual. On a shared box you 
 may see memory corruption problems (do to the lack of locking) even if

 your app has no shared scope variables at all. How? If another app on 
 the box uses shared scopes and fails to lock code. All CF apps share 
 the same instance.
 
 Which is why CFMX on J2EE is so compelling. Each app runs in its own 
 safe little world.

If only running a few hundred instances wouldn't require a mainframe...

Jochem




~|
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.
http://www.cfhosting.com

Unsubscribe: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4

RE: CrystalTech says ALL variables must be locked

[Dave Watts]

 Yes, there is an 80MB or so hit per instance. It is not for 
 every little site, no question about it.

It doesn't seem at all suitable for a shared hosting environment, which is
what Jochem's getting at, I think.

Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
http://www.figleaf.com/
voice: (202) 797-5496
fax: (202) 797-5444

~|
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.
http://www.cfhosting.com

Unsubscribe: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4

RE: CrystalTech says ALL variables must be locked

[Ben Forta]

Dave,

I agree. For hundreds of sites, nope. For a fewer number, yes. I expect
that we'll soon start seeing both offered, depending on what you need
(and what you'll pay for).

--- Ben




-Original Message-
From: Dave Watts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 5:09 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: CrystalTech says ALL variables must be locked


 Yes, there is an 80MB or so hit per instance. It is not for
 every little site, no question about it.

It doesn't seem at all suitable for a shared hosting environment, which
is what Jochem's getting at, I think.

Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
http://www.figleaf.com/
voice: (202) 797-5496
fax: (202) 797-5444


~|
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.
http://www.cfhosting.com

Unsubscribe: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4

RE: CrystalTech says ALL variables must be locked

[Dave Watts]

 I agree. For hundreds of sites, nope. For a fewer number, 
 yes. I expect that we'll soon start seeing both offered, 
 depending on what you need (and what you'll pay for).

I don't know; it seems that there's little room for it to be a viable shared
hosting solution. If you have the kind of machine that can handle it, you
might be better off with true separation through virtualization - something
along the lines of the VMware GSX and ESX server products. If not, you'd
probably be better off with dedicated hosts.

Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
http://www.figleaf.com/
voice: (202) 797-5496
fax: (202) 797-5444

~|
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: CrystalTech says ALL variables must be locked

[Jim Davis]

I don't know - it seems like more hosts offering VPS are limiting themselves
to 4 instances per physical machine (at about $200 a month).  I would guess
on the same machine you could host 8-12 instances of MX just as comfortably
for $70-$100 per month (with all the trimmings of course).

Performance for a such a solution may be better than a VM solution (then
again it may not be) and it would most likely be cheaper to set up/maintain
from the hosts perspective (for a VM you need an OS license for example).

So the cost seems about the same or cheaper to me - it's soley a case of
whether the market will respond to it.

Jim Davis

 -Original Message-
 From: Dave Watts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 5:25 PM
 To: CF-Talk
 Subject: RE: CrystalTech says ALL variables must be locked
 
  I agree. For hundreds of sites, nope. For a fewer number,
  yes. I expect that we'll soon start seeing both offered,
  depending on what you need (and what you'll pay for).
 
 I don't know; it seems that there's little room for it to be a viable
 shared
 hosting solution. If you have the kind of machine that can handle it, you
 might be better off with true separation through virtualization -
 something
 along the lines of the VMware GSX and ESX server products. If not, you'd
 probably be better off with dedicated hosts.
 
 Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
 http://www.figleaf.com/
 voice: (202) 797-5496
 fax: (202) 797-5444
 
 
~|
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: CrystalTech says ALL variables must be locked

[Ryan Kime]

You also have to look at what the market will bear. You will most likely be
able to charge more for a VPS as they are getting more than just app
isolation. I think the CFMX J2EE benefit would be a hard sell to potential
hosting customers. Therefore, it is not so much your cost per month, but
your profit after expenses.



-Original Message-
From: Jim Davis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 4:29 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: CrystalTech says ALL variables must be locked


I don't know - it seems like more hosts offering VPS are limiting themselves
to 4 instances per physical machine (at about $200 a month).  I would guess
on the same machine you could host 8-12 instances of MX just as comfortably
for $70-$100 per month (with all the trimmings of course).

Performance for a such a solution may be better than a VM solution (then
again it may not be) and it would most likely be cheaper to set up/maintain
from the hosts perspective (for a VM you need an OS license for example).

So the cost seems about the same or cheaper to me - it's soley a case of
whether the market will respond to it.

Jim Davis

 -Original Message-
 From: Dave Watts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 5:25 PM
 To: CF-Talk
 Subject: RE: CrystalTech says ALL variables must be locked
 
  I agree. For hundreds of sites, nope. For a fewer number, yes. I 
  expect that we'll soon start seeing both offered, depending on what 
  you need (and what you'll pay for).
 
 I don't know; it seems that there's little room for it to be a viable 
 shared hosting solution. If you have the kind of machine that can 
 handle it, you might be better off with true separation through 
 virtualization - something
 along the lines of the VMware GSX and ESX server products. If not, you'd
 probably be better off with dedicated hosts.
 
 Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
 http://www.figleaf.com/
 voice: (202) 797-5496
 fax: (202) 797-5444
 
 

~|
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: CrystalTech says ALL variables must be locked

[Jochem van Dieten]

Ben Forta wrote:
 Point taken! :-)
 
 Yes, there is an 80MB or so hit per instance. It is not for every little
 site, no question about it.

I think CF MX is geting to the point where the relevant question is not 
whether it is suited for *every* little site, but whether it is suited 
for *any* shared site.

If you don't go for separate instances, the amount of security you can 
offer is fairly minimal, and the price you pay is high (both in disabled 
functionality and in $$$ because you need Enterprise Edition). If you do 
go for separate instances, it will be very hard to host more than a few 
sites on a server. (And licensing costs go up rather drastically when 
you have SMP servers.)

I'm glad we're not supposed to make money on hosting ColdFusion 
(educational sector).

Jochem



~|
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.
http://www.cfhosting.com

Unsubscribe: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4

RE: CrystalTech says ALL variables must be locked

[Charlie Arehart]

I'll just throw in that BlueDragon's runtime costs only 2 MB per instance in
our BlueDragon for J2EE product. And of course you can get all the same
benefits Ben alluded to of using independent instances, etc.

/charlie

 -Original Message-
 From: Ben Forta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 4:46 PM
 To: CF-Talk
 Subject: RE: CrystalTech says ALL variables must be locked


 Point taken! :-)

 Yes, there is an 80MB or so hit per instance. It is not for every little
 site, no question about it.






 -Original Message-
 From: Jochem van Dieten [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 4:39 PM
 To: CF-Talk
 Subject: Re: CrystalTech says ALL variables must be locked


 Ben Forta wrote:
 
  Regardless, it is worth noting that problems caused by the lack of
  locking (CF4.x and CF5) can be slow and gradual. On a shared box you
  may see memory corruption problems (do to the lack of locking) even if

  your app has no shared scope variables at all. How? If another app on
  the box uses shared scopes and fails to lock code. All CF apps share
  the same instance.
 
  Which is why CFMX on J2EE is so compelling. Each app runs in its own
  safe little world.

 If only running a few hundred instances wouldn't require a mainframe...

 Jochem




 
~|
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: CrystalTech says ALL variables must be locked

[Jim Davis]

 -Original Message-
 From: Ryan Kime [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 5:41 PM
 To: CF-Talk
 Subject: RE: CrystalTech says ALL variables must be locked
 
 You also have to look at what the market will bear. You will most likely
 be


Isn't that what I said?  ;^)

 able to charge more for a VPS as they are getting more than just app
 isolation. I think the CFMX J2EE benefit would be a hard sell to potential
 hosting customers. Therefore, it is not so much your cost per month, but
 your profit after expenses.

I mentioned that as well actually... and an isolated instance of CF is MUCH
cheaper to install and maintain than a VPS.

Many hosts offer enterprise CF hosting now for upwards of $80 a month
already.  One of the features of these plans is the low number of sites on
the server so they may be able to do separate instances with their current
load already.

People that are willing to pay $80 a month for a feature set may be willing
to pay another $10-$20 a month for application isolation.

Jim Davis


~|
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: CrystalTech says ALL variables must be locked

[Dave Jones]

Gee, my brush with fame! ;-)

Dave Jones
NetEffect


At 04:19 PM 7/3/03 -0400, you wrote:
Dave,

Thanks for starting this thread. I know it ended up in a whole different
place, but it got me thinking, and fed my blog today. :-)

http://www.forta.com/blog/index.cfm?mode=eentry=855

--- Ben



-Original Message-
From: Dave Jones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 12:23 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: CrystalTech says ALL variables must be locked


Hi,
I'm trying to resolve a problem for an application hosted at
CrystalTech which sporadically starts sending out corrupted email
when using CFMAIL.

CrystalTech is saying that the problem is because I'm not
CFLOCKing my variables, even though a) my application is not
using session or application variables; b) I've demonstrated the
problem with a test program that uses NO variables, and c) the
problem only occurs with CFMAIL, not CDONTS.

During the discussion, their techs insist that in a shared
hosting environment, ALL variables must be CFLOCKed, not just
shared variables (session, application, etc.). Is this right? I'm
well aware of the need to lock shared variables, but I've never
heard that non-shared variables must be locked as well.

Can anyone confirm whether this is true or not? (Any insight into
the CFMAIL problem would be appreciated as well)

Thanks,
Dave Jones
NetEffect



~|
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