Re: Application Scoped CFC's and the Request Scope
I could see issues. In thinking about standard app flow, the app is instantiated, calling onApplicationStart (where most of your application vars would get created), the onSessionStart, and only then onRequestStart. In that model, reffing the request scope in your application vars would always cause a problem, since the request vars would not yet exist. Steve 'Cutter' Blades Adobe Community Professional Adobe Certified Expert Advanced Macromedia ColdFusion MX 7 Developer http://cutterscrossing.com Co-Author "Learning Ext JS 3.2" Packt Publishing 2010 https://www.packtpub.com/learning-ext-js-3-2-for-building-dynamic-desktop-style-user-interfaces/book "The best way to predict the future is to help create it" On 5/1/2012 2:33 PM, Brook Davies wrote: > Hey Guys, > > > > While I know its not best practice, I am setting some variables in the > request scope that are then referenced by several application scoped CFCs. > Can this lead to collisions? I am seeing some strange errors that only > happen when I run multiple requests at the same time and seem to involve the > request scoped data. Could this potentially be the issue? > > > > Brook > > > > > ~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/message.cfm/messageid:350950 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/unsubscribe.cfm
Application Scoped CFC's and the Request Scope
Hey Guys, While I know its not best practice, I am setting some variables in the request scope that are then referenced by several application scoped CFCs. Can this lead to collisions? I am seeing some strange errors that only happen when I run multiple requests at the same time and seem to involve the request scoped data. Could this potentially be the issue? Brook ~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/message.cfm/messageid:350929 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/unsubscribe.cfm
RE: Named arguments, UDFs, Request scope
Haven't tried it myself, but take a look at the last comment here: http://cferror.org/error.cfm?errorID=6 Shout if it works. Adrian > -Original Message- > From: Michael Casey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 04 December 2008 15:54 > To: cf-talk > Subject: Re: Named arguments, UDFs, Request scope > > @Dominic > > Nice idea! Same result though :-( ~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;207172674;29440083;f Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/message.cfm/messageid:316540 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
Re: Named arguments, UDFs, Request scope
I'm not sure, but have you tried something like: Quite possibly brings out the same result but worth a shot... Dominic ~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;207172674;29440083;f Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/message.cfm/messageid:316255 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.4
Re: Named arguments, UDFs, Request scope
@Dominic Nice idea! Same result though :-( ~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;207172674;29440083;f Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/message.cfm/messageid:316260 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.4
Re: Named arguments, UDFs, Request scope
Oops, browser was set to auto-refresh, hence the double post. Sorry 'bout that... ~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;207172674;29440083;f Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/message.cfm/messageid:316257 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.4
Named arguments, UDFs, Request scope
There is/was a problem in CF7 regarding using named arguments to call UDFs that were in the request scope (also mentioned here, for reference http://www.coldfusionjedi.com/index.cfm/2005/10/27/CFMX-7-and-Super-Fixes). The function produces this error, "Cannot invoke method [x] on an object of type coldfusion.runtime.Struct with named arguments". Does anyone know if a fix was ever produced for it? Or must I use ordered arguments? Michael ~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;207172674;29440083;f Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/message.cfm/messageid:316253 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.4
Named arguments, UDFs, Request scope
There is/was a problem in CF7 regarding using named arguments to call UDFs that were in the request scope (also mentioned here, for reference http://www.coldfusionjedi.com/index.cfm/2005/10/27/CFMX-7-and-Super-Fixes). The function produces this error, "Cannot invoke method [x] on an object of type coldfusion.runtime.Struct with named arguments". Does anyone know if a fix was ever produced for it? Or must I use ordered arguments? Michael ~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;207172674;29440083;f Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/message.cfm/messageid:316251 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
cftransaction and the request scope
MX 6.1 environment. For some applications, I do some datasource setup in the app.cfm to separate development and production environments, amongst other things. So my app.cfm has some code like this then in a page in the application, i have some transaction processing update foo set foo = bar where bar = foo update bar set bar = foo where foo = bar sometimes, but not always, i will get this error: -- Data source devDS verification failed. The root cause was that: java.sql.SQLException: Datasource names for all the database tags within CFTRANSACTION must be the same. The error occurred on line 232. -- I was under the impression that REQUEST is a superset of the VARIABLES scope, and will always be thread safe and limited to the CURRENT REQUEST only. While the error would imply that I am getting different results for the REQUEST variable within the transaction, I have seen no evidence to back this up. Specifically, whenever it does fail, it always gives the proper datasource in the error message, NEVER giving the "other", "improper" datasource... in this case it would be "productionDS". I can work around this problem by setting variables.thisDSN = REQUEST.thisDSN at the top of the transaction, then just calling #thisDSN# in the datasource field...but what's the point? I thought REQUEST was exactly the same as the VARIABLES scope, excpet REQUEST could be read by all parts of the thread (including custom tags). Why then would it not, within the request, always define request.thisDSN exactly the same way? Any ideas? & TIA, -Jeff ~| Special thanks to the CF Community Suite Gold Sponsor - CFHosting.net http://www.cfhosting.net Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:183438 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.4 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
Re: How to use Request scope?!
o.param is a string that I get out of a CFPROCEDURE it's there and avaiable. I have focused it down to the setting the request variable. when I dump and abort the o.param it's there. Ian On Wed, 3 Nov 2004 17:02:11 -0800, Sean Corfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, 3 Nov 2004 18:29:00 -0500, Ian Sheridan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > oh yeah it works I am getting the expected value in o.param. > > Where is o.param set? You didn't show that in your cut-down code... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > #request.actionpasser# > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Sean A Corfield -- http://www.corfield.org/ > Team Fusebox -- http://www.fusebox.org/ > Got Gmail? -- I have 1 invite > > "If you're not annoying somebody, you're not really alive." > -- Margaret Atwood > > ~| Purchase from House of Fusion, a Macromedia Authorized Affiliate and support the CF community. http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=34 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:183327 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
RE: How to use Request scope?!
Either way, it had to be set or the error he would get would be PARAM not defined in O. -Original Message- From: Sean Corfield [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2004 8:02 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: How to use Request scope?! On Wed, 3 Nov 2004 18:29:00 -0500, Ian Sheridan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > oh yeah it works I am getting the expected value in o.param. Where is o.param set? You didn't show that in your cut-down code... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > #request.actionpasser# > > > > > > > > > > > > -- Sean A Corfield -- http://www.corfield.org/ Team Fusebox -- http://www.fusebox.org/ Got Gmail? -- I have 1 invite "If you're not annoying somebody, you're not really alive." -- Margaret Atwood ~| Purchase from House of Fusion, a Macromedia Authorized Affiliate and support the CF community. http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=34 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:183326 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.4 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
Re: How to use Request scope?!
On Wed, 3 Nov 2004 18:29:00 -0500, Ian Sheridan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > oh yeah it works I am getting the expected value in o.param. Where is o.param set? You didn't show that in your cut-down code... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > #request.actionpasser# > > > > > > > > > > > > -- Sean A Corfield -- http://www.corfield.org/ Team Fusebox -- http://www.fusebox.org/ Got Gmail? -- I have 1 invite "If you're not annoying somebody, you're not really alive." -- Margaret Atwood ~| Sams Teach Yourself Regular Expressions in 10 Minutes by Ben Forta http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=40 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:183325 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.4 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
Re: How to use Request scope?!
oh yeah it works I am getting the expected value in o.param. On Wed, 3 Nov 2004 15:15:46 -0800, Sean Corfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Have you checked that o.param contains a valid value? > > > > On Wed, 3 Nov 2004 14:18:49 -0500, Ian Sheridan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I was getting the "actionpasser" not defined in the Request scope. > > > > This is basicly what I am doing: > > > > > > > > > > > > #request.actionpasser# > > > > > > > > -- -- Ian Sheridan http://www.savagevines.com -- ~| This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for dependable ColdFusion Hosting. http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=11 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:183318 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
Re: How to use Request scope?!
Have you checked that o.param contains a valid value? On Wed, 3 Nov 2004 14:18:49 -0500, Ian Sheridan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I was getting the "actionpasser" not defined in the Request scope. > > This is basicly what I am doing: > > > > > > #request.actionpasser# > > > > ~| Sams Teach Yourself Regular Expressions in 10 Minutes by Ben Forta http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=40 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:183317 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
RE: How to use Request scope?!
Thats pretty strange. I've never seen or heard of it happening before. Everything seems right to me. What happens when you unscope it? Make it just actionpasser instead of request.actionpasser. This would work just the same as it SHOULD when scoped as request. Are you having nay problems with the request scope anywhere else? -Original Message- From: Ian Sheridan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2004 2:19 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: How to use Request scope?! I was getting the "actionpasser" not defined in the Request scope. This is basicly what I am doing: #request.actionpasser# On Wed, 3 Nov 2004 14:08:51 -0500, Ewok <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Same here... I set all my request variables in one file then include it via > Application.cfm. the request vars are available anywhere and everywhere > throughout the entire application this way. > > If you have these two files... > > > > > > > #request.testvar# > > Index.cfm should just display "request variable" > > This SHOULD definitely work. If it's not, then there is something wrong > somewhere else. Were you getting test not defined in request scope errors? > Or any kind of error for that matter... > > > > -Original Message- > From: Ben Doom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2004 1:26 PM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: Re: How to use Request scope?! > > Except that I do exactly what you said didn't work all the time. I > routinely create request or variable scoped vars in one include to be > used in another. The includes are serial, not nested. > > So I don't know what your original problem was, but I'd be careful to > check and make sure that the value being used in the second include is > actually what's being set in the first, not in the index. > > --Ben > > Ian Sheridan wrote: > > Well let me be a little bit more descriptive. > > > > I have an "index.cfm" page that includes two files. I was then setting > > the REQUEST variable *in* the first include. In the second include I > > would then look for it. This did not work. > > > > I now set the REQUEST variable in the "index.cfm" file first. Then set > > it in the first include and read it in the second include. This works. > > > > So I gather from this experience that request is *inherited* from the > > parent document. > > > > Application.cfm > > - index.cfm > > -- include.cfm > > > > It only gets inherited. there is no creating it in a child include/file. > > > > Ian > > ~| Purchase from House of Fusion, a Macromedia Authorized Affiliate and support the CF community. http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=38 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:183313 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
Re: How to use Request scope?!
I was getting the "actionpasser" not defined in the Request scope. This is basicly what I am doing: #request.actionpasser# On Wed, 3 Nov 2004 14:08:51 -0500, Ewok <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Same here... I set all my request variables in one file then include it via > Application.cfm. the request vars are available anywhere and everywhere > throughout the entire application this way. > > If you have these two files... > > > > > > > #request.testvar# > > Index.cfm should just display "request variable" > > This SHOULD definitely work. If it's not, then there is something wrong > somewhere else. Were you getting test not defined in request scope errors? > Or any kind of error for that matter... > > > > -Original Message- > From: Ben Doom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2004 1:26 PM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: Re: How to use Request scope?! > > Except that I do exactly what you said didn't work all the time. I > routinely create request or variable scoped vars in one include to be > used in another. The includes are serial, not nested. > > So I don't know what your original problem was, but I'd be careful to > check and make sure that the value being used in the second include is > actually what's being set in the first, not in the index. > > --Ben > > Ian Sheridan wrote: > > Well let me be a little bit more descriptive. > > > > I have an "index.cfm" page that includes two files. I was then setting > > the REQUEST variable *in* the first include. In the second include I > > would then look for it. This did not work. > > > > I now set the REQUEST variable in the "index.cfm" file first. Then set > > it in the first include and read it in the second include. This works. > > > > So I gather from this experience that request is *inherited* from the > > parent document. > > > > Application.cfm > > - index.cfm > > -- include.cfm > > > > It only gets inherited. there is no creating it in a child include/file. > > > > Ian > > ~| Purchase from House of Fusion, a Macromedia Authorized Affiliate and support the CF community. http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=35 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:183306 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
Re: How to use Request scope?!
It shouldn't matter what version. Request variables worked the way documented in 5, I know from experience. They should work in 6.0 just fine. But that raises the question of why you're running 6.0 instead of 6.1 with updaters. Is there are reason? If not, you should definately update -- there are a number of security and performance fixes. --Ben Ian Sheridan wrote: > Oh it is passing the right info but maybe it's because I am doing this > on a 6.0 machine > > Ian > > On Wed, 03 Nov 2004 13:25:35 -0500, Ben Doom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>Except that I do exactly what you said didn't work all the time. I >>routinely create request or variable scoped vars in one include to be >>used in another. The includes are serial, not nested. >> >>So I don't know what your original problem was, but I'd be careful to >>check and make sure that the value being used in the second include is >>actually what's being set in the first, not in the index. >> >>--Ben ~| Purchase from House of Fusion, a Macromedia Authorized Affiliate and support the CF community. http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=34 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:183303 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
RE: How to use Request scope?!
Same here... I set all my request variables in one file then include it via Application.cfm. the request vars are available anywhere and everywhere throughout the entire application this way. If you have these two files... #request.testvar# Index.cfm should just display "request variable" This SHOULD definitely work. If it's not, then there is something wrong somewhere else. Were you getting test not defined in request scope errors? Or any kind of error for that matter... -Original Message- From: Ben Doom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2004 1:26 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: How to use Request scope?! Except that I do exactly what you said didn't work all the time. I routinely create request or variable scoped vars in one include to be used in another. The includes are serial, not nested. So I don't know what your original problem was, but I'd be careful to check and make sure that the value being used in the second include is actually what's being set in the first, not in the index. --Ben Ian Sheridan wrote: > Well let me be a little bit more descriptive. > > I have an "index.cfm" page that includes two files. I was then setting > the REQUEST variable *in* the first include. In the second include I > would then look for it. This did not work. > > I now set the REQUEST variable in the "index.cfm" file first. Then set > it in the first include and read it in the second include. This works. > > So I gather from this experience that request is *inherited* from the > parent document. > > Application.cfm > - index.cfm > -- include.cfm > > It only gets inherited. there is no creating it in a child include/file. > > Ian ~| Purchase from House of Fusion, a Macromedia Authorized Affiliate and support the CF community. http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=37 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:183301 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.4 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
Re: How to use Request scope?!
Oh it is passing the right info but maybe it's because I am doing this on a 6.0 machine Ian On Wed, 03 Nov 2004 13:25:35 -0500, Ben Doom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Except that I do exactly what you said didn't work all the time. I > routinely create request or variable scoped vars in one include to be > used in another. The includes are serial, not nested. > > So I don't know what your original problem was, but I'd be careful to > check and make sure that the value being used in the second include is > actually what's being set in the first, not in the index. > > --Ben > > > > Ian Sheridan wrote: > > Well let me be a little bit more descriptive. > > > > I have an "index.cfm" page that includes two files. I was then setting > > the REQUEST variable *in* the first include. In the second include I > > would then look for it. This did not work. > > > > I now set the REQUEST variable in the "index.cfm" file first. Then set > > it in the first include and read it in the second include. This works. > > > > So I gather from this experience that request is *inherited* from the > > parent document. > > > > Application.cfm > > - index.cfm > > -- include.cfm > > > > It only gets inherited. there is no creating it in a child include/file. > > > > Ian > > > ~| Purchase from House of Fusion, a Macromedia Authorized Affiliate and support the CF community. http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=38 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:183294 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.4 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
Re: How to use Request scope?!
A request scope can be set anywere and is available anywhere during a request. However its bad coding practice to use it in CFCs and what not but as far as I can tell it can be done. Adam On Wed, 03 Nov 2004 13:25:35 -0500, Ben Doom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Except that I do exactly what you said didn't work all the time. I > routinely create request or variable scoped vars in one include to be > used in another. The includes are serial, not nested. > > So I don't know what your original problem was, but I'd be careful to > check and make sure that the value being used in the second include is > actually what's being set in the first, not in the index. > > --Ben > > > > Ian Sheridan wrote: > > Well let me be a little bit more descriptive. > > > > I have an "index.cfm" page that includes two files. I was then setting > > the REQUEST variable *in* the first include. In the second include I > > would then look for it. This did not work. > > > > I now set the REQUEST variable in the "index.cfm" file first. Then set > > it in the first include and read it in the second include. This works. > > > > So I gather from this experience that request is *inherited* from the > > parent document. > > > > Application.cfm > > - index.cfm > > -- include.cfm > > > > It only gets inherited. there is no creating it in a child include/file. > > > > Ian > > > ~| Purchase from House of Fusion, a Macromedia Authorized Affiliate and support the CF community. http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=35 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:183293 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
Re: How to use Request scope?!
Except that I do exactly what you said didn't work all the time. I routinely create request or variable scoped vars in one include to be used in another. The includes are serial, not nested. So I don't know what your original problem was, but I'd be careful to check and make sure that the value being used in the second include is actually what's being set in the first, not in the index. --Ben Ian Sheridan wrote: > Well let me be a little bit more descriptive. > > I have an "index.cfm" page that includes two files. I was then setting > the REQUEST variable *in* the first include. In the second include I > would then look for it. This did not work. > > I now set the REQUEST variable in the "index.cfm" file first. Then set > it in the first include and read it in the second include. This works. > > So I gather from this experience that request is *inherited* from the > parent document. > > Application.cfm > - index.cfm > -- include.cfm > > It only gets inherited. there is no creating it in a child include/file. > > Ian ~| Sams Teach Yourself Regular Expressions in 10 Minutes by Ben Forta http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=40 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:183292 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
Re: How to use Request scope?!
Well let me be a little bit more descriptive. I have an "index.cfm" page that includes two files. I was then setting the REQUEST variable *in* the first include. In the second include I would then look for it. This did not work. I now set the REQUEST variable in the "index.cfm" file first. Then set it in the first include and read it in the second include. This works. So I gather from this experience that request is *inherited* from the parent document. Application.cfm - index.cfm -- include.cfm It only gets inherited. there is no creating it in a child include/file. Ian On Wed, 03 Nov 2004 13:05:25 -0500, Ben Doom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It sounds like it wasn't always being set in the first include. > > Regardless of what file a request variable is set in, it is available to > all subsequent code. I may be off a bit with regard to CFCs, but that's > how I understand it. > > --Ben > > > > Ian Sheridan wrote: > > well that's the thing I am setting it in include not the index.cfm file. > > > > so I created it in the index.cfm file NOT the included file and it now works. > > > > Ian > > > >>Sure, as long as you set it before you call it of course > >> > >>-Original Message- > >> > >>can you set a request scope variable in an include? > >> > >>ex. > >>-index.cfm > >>--include1.cfm --> set request.test > >>--include2.cfm --> read request.test > >> > >>can this be done? > > > ~| Purchase from House of Fusion, a Macromedia Authorized Affiliate and support the CF community. http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=38 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:183289 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.4 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
Re: How to use Request scope?!
It sounds like it wasn't always being set in the first include. Regardless of what file a request variable is set in, it is available to all subsequent code. I may be off a bit with regard to CFCs, but that's how I understand it. --Ben Ian Sheridan wrote: > well that's the thing I am setting it in include not the index.cfm file. > > so I created it in the index.cfm file NOT the included file and it now works. > > Ian > >>Sure, as long as you set it before you call it of course >> >>-----Original Message- >> >>can you set a request scope variable in an include? >> >>ex. >>-index.cfm >>--include1.cfm --> set request.test >>--include2.cfm --> read request.test >> >>can this be done? ~| This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for dependable ColdFusion Hosting. http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=11 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:183286 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
Re: How to use Request scope?!
well that's the thing I am setting it in include not the index.cfm file. so I created it in the index.cfm file NOT the included file and it now works. Ian On Wed, 3 Nov 2004 12:41:26 -0500, Ewok <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Sure, as long as you set it before you call it of course > > > > -Original Message- > From: Ian Sheridan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2004 12:38 PM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: How to use Request scope?! > > can you set a request scope variable in an include? > > ex. > -index.cfm > --include1.cfm --> set request.test > --include2.cfm --> read request.test > > can this be done? > > -- > > -- > Ian Sheridan > http://www.savagevines.com > > > ~| Purchase from House of Fusion, a Macromedia Authorized Affiliate and support the CF community. http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=36 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:183285 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
RE: How to use Request scope?!
Sure, as long as you set it before you call it of course -Original Message- From: Ian Sheridan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2004 12:38 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: How to use Request scope?! can you set a request scope variable in an include? ex. -index.cfm --include1.cfm --> set request.test --include2.cfm --> read request.test can this be done? -- -- Ian Sheridan http://www.savagevines.com ~| This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for dependable ColdFusion Hosting. http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=11 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:183279 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
How to use Request scope?!
can you set a request scope variable in an include? ex. -index.cfm --include1.cfm --> set request.test --include2.cfm --> read request.test can this be done? -- -- Ian Sheridan http://www.savagevines.com -- ~| Purchase from House of Fusion, a Macromedia Authorized Affiliate and support the CF community. http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=37 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:183276 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.4 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
RE: request scope question
request.queryName becomes a pointer to the "queryName" recordset. You can now access and modify anything in queryName through the reference request.queryName. SO yes, you can access "request.queryName.column1" (and it is identical to "queryName.column1") Pascal > -Original Message- > From: G [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 28 October 2004 19:02 > To: CF-Talk > Subject: request scope question > > Been away too long... > > What does the following block of code assign to the "request.queryName" > variable?? > > > SELECT column1, column2 > FROM table > > > > > Can i now access "request.queryName.column1" ? > > TIA, > Brian > > > > ~| Sams Teach Yourself Regular Expressions in 10 Minutes by Ben Forta http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=40 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:182908 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.4 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
Re: request scope question
It assigns the recordset as a whole. request.queryName.column1 should return the value of column1 in the first row of the recordset. cheers, barneyb On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 12:02:04 -0500, G <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Been away too long... > > What does the following block of code assign to the "request.queryName" variable?? > > > SELECT column1, column2 > FROM table > > > > > Can i now access "request.queryName.column1" ? > > TIA, > Brian -- Barney Boisvert [EMAIL PROTECTED] 360.319.6145 http://www.barneyb.com/blog/ I currently have 0 GMail invites for the taking ~| Purchase from House of Fusion, a Macromedia Authorized Affiliate and support the CF community. http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=36 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:182847 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.4 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
request scope question
Been away too long... What does the following block of code assign to the "request.queryName" variable?? SELECT column1, column2 FROM table Can i now access "request.queryName.column1" ? TIA, Brian ~| Protect your mail server with built in anti-virus protection. It's not only good for you, it's good for everybody. http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=39 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:182846 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.4 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
Re: request scope and grouped output
> Hi All, > I have a table that I would like to replicate each time > the output loops > through, based on grouping. However, within the table > there are outputs > that call to the request scope variables. That in turn > throws an error as > the request scope variables aren't a part of the grouped > query's record > set. > Help? I'm not sure I understand what you're describing. Can you post your code and the error? s. isaac dealey 954.927.5117 new epoch : isn't it time for a change? add features without fixtures with the onTap open source framework http://www.sys-con.com/story/?storyid=44477&DE=1 http://www.sys-con.com/story/?storyid=45569&DE=1 http://www.fusiontap.com [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
Re: request scope and grouped output
You can definitely call request-scoped variables from inside loops. Are you scoping the variable call with "request."? cheers, barneyb On Fri, 3 Sep 2004 13:46:11 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi All, > > I have a table that I would like to replicate each time the output loops > through, based on grouping. However, within the table there are outputs > that call to the request scope variables. That in turn throws an error as > the request scope variables aren't a part of the grouped query's record > set. > > Help? > -- Barney Boisvert [EMAIL PROTECTED] 360.319.6145 http://www.barneyb.com [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
request scope and grouped output
Hi All, I have a table that I would like to replicate each time the output loops through, based on grouping. However, within the table there are outputs that call to the request scope variables. That in turn throws an error as the request scope variables aren't a part of the grouped query's record set. Help? [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
RE: request scope in cfc... really so bad?
right, i guess web service is a good example. thanks for all the responses. [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
RE: request scope in cfc... really so bad?
right, i guess web service is a good example. thanks for all the feedback. From: Kola Oyedeji [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 18, 2004 10:17 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: request scope in cfc... really so bad? Simon Generally its good for your cfc to be well encapsulated such that it doesn't know anything about its environment. This will make it more re-useable. Consider this - what happens if you need to call the cfc as a web service in future you've just lost that flexibility. If you have no plans to do this and you know that these variables will always be available in *every application* you write then its not a problem. But if you plan to re-use it I would pass the variables in, remember you can put them in a structure and pass them into an initialization function using attributesCollection (I think) although you loose the type checking of cfarguement. Hope that helps Kola -Original Message- From: Simon Stanlake [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 18 June 2004 17:59 To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: request scope in cfc... really so bad? yep, though I guess my question is really, why not use request scope, rather than how to work around it. There are probably lots of ways to do it without using request scope, but request seems like the least overhead. From: Barney Boisvert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 18, 2004 9:36 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: request scope in cfc... really so bad? Why not make a configuration CFC (basically an encapsulated struct), that you can pass to all the various CFCs? Instantiate that CFC into the application scope, initialize it with the parameters, and then pass that single course-grained view of the configuration data to each individual CFC that needs it. Cheers, barneyb > -Original Message- > From: Simon Stanlake [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, June 18, 2004 9:29 AM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: request scope in cfc... really so bad? > > Thoughts? > > If CFCs were EJBs, you would have external config info that you would > look up using JNDI (or something, I'm not quite up to snuff on J2EE). > Let's say I am careful and create well named variables like... > > request..datasource = "MyDatasource"; > request..timeout = 300; > > etc, all in one file called .cfm that is included in > application.cfm. Contract with the developer is you have to include > .cfm in your application.cfm before calling the CFC. > Am I such > a bad guy? > > I guess worst case scenario is Macromedia decides not to > support it one > day, but I haven't heard anything about that. It's just such a pain if > there's 10 variables in your app that are required by 10 > different CFCs, > passing them in as args to the constructor seems awkward. > > _ [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
RE: request scope in cfc... really so bad?
Simon Generally its good for your cfc to be well encapsulated such that it doesn't know anything about its environment. This will make it more re-useable. Consider this - what happens if you need to call the cfc as a web service in future you've just lost that flexibility. If you have no plans to do this and you know that these variables will always be available in *every application* you write then its not a problem. But if you plan to re-use it I would pass the variables in, remember you can put them in a structure and pass them into an initialization function using attributesCollection (I think) although you loose the type checking of cfarguement. Hope that helps Kola -Original Message- From: Simon Stanlake [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 18 June 2004 17:59 To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: request scope in cfc... really so bad? yep, though I guess my question is really, why not use request scope, rather than how to work around it. There are probably lots of ways to do it without using request scope, but request seems like the least overhead. From: Barney Boisvert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 18, 2004 9:36 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: request scope in cfc... really so bad? Why not make a configuration CFC (basically an encapsulated struct), that you can pass to all the various CFCs? Instantiate that CFC into the application scope, initialize it with the parameters, and then pass that single course-grained view of the configuration data to each individual CFC that needs it. Cheers, barneyb > -Original Message- > From: Simon Stanlake [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, June 18, 2004 9:29 AM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: request scope in cfc... really so bad? > > Thoughts? > > If CFCs were EJBs, you would have external config info that you would > look up using JNDI (or something, I'm not quite up to snuff on J2EE). > Let's say I am careful and create well named variables like... > > request..datasource = "MyDatasource"; > request..timeout = 300; > > etc, all in one file called .cfm that is included in > application.cfm. Contract with the developer is you have to include > .cfm in your application.cfm before calling the CFC. > Am I such > a bad guy? > > I guess worst case scenario is Macromedia decides not to > support it one > day, but I haven't heard anything about that. It's just such a pain if > there's 10 variables in your app that are required by 10 > different CFCs, > passing them in as args to the constructor seems awkward. > > _ [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
RE: request scope in cfc... really so bad?
yep, though I guess my question is really, why not use request scope, rather than how to work around it. There are probably lots of ways to do it without using request scope, but request seems like the least overhead. From: Barney Boisvert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 18, 2004 9:36 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: request scope in cfc... really so bad? Why not make a configuration CFC (basically an encapsulated struct), that you can pass to all the various CFCs? Instantiate that CFC into the application scope, initialize it with the parameters, and then pass that single course-grained view of the configuration data to each individual CFC that needs it. Cheers, barneyb > -Original Message- > From: Simon Stanlake [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, June 18, 2004 9:29 AM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: request scope in cfc... really so bad? > > Thoughts? > > If CFCs were EJBs, you would have external config info that you would > look up using JNDI (or something, I'm not quite up to snuff on J2EE). > Let's say I am careful and create well named variables like... > > request..datasource = "MyDatasource"; > request..timeout = 300; > > etc, all in one file called .cfm that is included in > application.cfm. Contract with the developer is you have to include > .cfm in your application.cfm before calling the CFC. > Am I such > a bad guy? > > I guess worst case scenario is Macromedia decides not to > support it one > day, but I haven't heard anything about that. It's just such a pain if > there's 10 variables in your app that are required by 10 > different CFCs, > passing them in as args to the constructor seems awkward. > > [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
RE: request scope in cfc... really so bad?
Why not make a configuration CFC (basically an encapsulated struct), that you can pass to all the various CFCs? Instantiate that CFC into the application scope, initialize it with the parameters, and then pass that single course-grained view of the configuration data to each individual CFC that needs it. Cheers, barneyb > -Original Message- > From: Simon Stanlake [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, June 18, 2004 9:29 AM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: request scope in cfc... really so bad? > > Thoughts? > > If CFCs were EJBs, you would have external config info that you would > look up using JNDI (or something, I'm not quite up to snuff on J2EE). > Let's say I am careful and create well named variables like... > > request..datasource = "MyDatasource"; > request..timeout = 300; > > etc, all in one file called .cfm that is included in > application.cfm. Contract with the developer is you have to include > .cfm in your application.cfm before calling the CFC. > Am I such > a bad guy? > > I guess worst case scenario is Macromedia decides not to > support it one > day, but I haven't heard anything about that. It's just such a pain if > there's 10 variables in your app that are required by 10 > different CFCs, > passing them in as args to the constructor seems awkward. > > [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
request scope in cfc... really so bad?
Thoughts? If CFCs were EJBs, you would have external config info that you would look up using JNDI (or something, I'm not quite up to snuff on J2EE). Let's say I am careful and create well named variables like... request..datasource = "MyDatasource"; request..timeout = 300; etc, all in one file called .cfm that is included in application.cfm. Contract with the developer is you have to include .cfm in your application.cfm before calling the CFC. Am I such a bad guy? I guess worst case scenario is Macromedia decides not to support it one day, but I haven't heard anything about that. It's just such a pain if there's 10 variables in your app that are required by 10 different CFCs, passing them in as args to the constructor seems awkward. [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
RE: request scope combined with application???
I'd take a look at what the secLoginStatus() function is doing - is it referring to something (a structure, component, etc.) in the session scope that'd be returned by reference, and the members assigned inside of Request.Session are being made to point to something residing in session? -joe -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 14, 2004 12:33 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: request scope combined with application??? Could someone tell me the benefits of having variables in a request scope and in a structure loaded in the application page like below: I'm suspicious these are persistent scopes loaded into request scope since I also found this: I understand using the request scope for dsns etc., but I don't understand using the request scope with structures or as the notes say, application scope (hope to find that soon!). It would seem to be inefficient and defeat the purpose to load these values into both a persistent scope and a non-persistent scope. If these really are just a structure in the request scope, I still would think it's unnecessary complexity if not inefficient. Could some one enlighten me on any merits of doing it this way or confirm the inefficiencies? Is this somehow a trick to eliminate the need to lock variables? _ [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
request scope combined with application???
Could someone tell me the benefits of having variables in a request scope and in a structure loaded in the application page like below: I'm suspicious these are persistent scopes loaded into request scope since I also found this: I understand using the request scope for dsns etc., but I don't understand using the request scope with structures or as the notes say, application scope (hope to find that soon!). It would seem to be inefficient and defeat the purpose to load these values into both a persistent scope and a non-persistent scope. If these really are just a structure in the request scope, I still would think it's unnecessary complexity if not inefficient. Could some one enlighten me on any merits of doing it this way or confirm the inefficiencies? Is this somehow a trick to eliminate the need to lock variables? [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
RE: Application vs Request scope
> Which is more readable? > > #createTimeSpan(0, 0, 0, 10)# > 0.000115741 > > Sure, the execution time is slightly less for the latter, but > if you care about that last few microseconds, I'd highly > recommend dumping CF for assembler. The beauty of CF is that > it's really easy to learn, code, read and maintain. Doing > little "tricks" like that only detracts. > > And that's not even addressing the issue that there is almost > guarenteed to be somewhere that you can tweak a few lines of > SQL, or add an index somewhere and save several (perhaps tens > of) milliseconds a request. Amen, brother! Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ phone: 202-797-5496 fax: 202-797-5444 [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
RE: Application vs Request scope
Which is more readable? #createTimeSpan(0, 0, 0, 10)# 0.000115741 Sure, the execution time is slightly less for the latter, but if you care about that last few microseconds, I'd highly recommend dumping CF for assembler. The beauty of CF is that it's really easy to learn, code, read and maintain. Doing little "tricks" like that only detracts. And that's not even addressing the issue that there is almost guarenteed to be somewhere that you can tweak a few lines of SQL, or add an index somewhere and save several (perhaps tens of) milliseconds a request. Cheers, barneyb > -Original Message- > From: Thomas Chiverton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, April 23, 2004 8:29 AM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: Re: Application vs Request scope > > On Friday 23 Apr 2004 16:17 pm, Matt Robertson wrote: > > cachedwithin="#CreateTimeSpan(0,0,0,10)#"> > > Just a quickie, but you can put a fractional day here, rather > than doing a > createTimeSpan() for every page request. > cfdump a createTimeSpan call to see what I mean. > > -- > Tom Chiverton > Advanced ColdFusion Programmer > > Tel: +44(0)1749 834997 > email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > BlueFinger Limited > Underwood Business Park > Wookey Hole Road, WELLS. BA5 1AF > Tel: +44 (0)1749 834900 > Fax: +44 (0)1749 834901 > web: www.bluefinger.com > Company Reg No: 4209395 Registered Office: 2 Temple Back East, Temple > Quay, BRISTOL. BS1 6EG. > *** This E-mail contains confidential information for the addressee > only. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify us > immediately. You should not use, disclose, distribute or copy this > communication if received in error. No binding contract will > result from > this e-mail until such time as a written document is signed > on behalf of > the company. BlueFinger Limited cannot accept responsibility for the > completeness or accuracy of this message as it has been > transmitted over > public networks.*** > > [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
RE: Application vs Request scope
Thomas Chiverton wrote: >you can put a fractional day here, rather than doing a >createTimeSpan() for every page request. Yes, ever since Michael posted that on HoF I've been doing it, and it makes a lot of sense. I still use CreateTimeSpan when I plug in parameters instead of hardcoding the expiration value, where I'll use that same parameter value somewhere else as well (like a datecompare statement). Matt Robertson [EMAIL PROTECTED] MSB Designs, Inc. http://mysecretbase.com [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
Re: Application vs Request scope
On Friday 23 Apr 2004 16:17 pm, Matt Robertson wrote: > cachedwithin="#CreateTimeSpan(0,0,0,10)#"> Just a quickie, but you can put a fractional day here, rather than doing a createTimeSpan() for every page request. cfdump a createTimeSpan call to see what I mean. -- Tom Chiverton Advanced ColdFusion Programmer Tel: +44(0)1749 834997 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] BlueFinger Limited Underwood Business Park Wookey Hole Road, WELLS. BA5 1AF Tel: +44 (0)1749 834900 Fax: +44 (0)1749 834901 web: www.bluefinger.com Company Reg No: 4209395 Registered Office: 2 Temple Back East, Temple Quay, BRISTOL. BS1 6EG. *** This E-mail contains confidential information for the addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify us immediately. You should not use, disclose, distribute or copy this communication if received in error. No binding contract will result from this e-mail until such time as a written document is signed on behalf of the company. BlueFinger Limited cannot accept responsibility for the completeness or accuracy of this message as it has been transmitted over public networks.*** [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
RE: Application vs Request scope
p.s. leave that silly maxrows statement out. --Matt-- [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
RE: Application vs Request scope
Spectrum Web Design wrote: >Hi Matt. Do you can share this technique about >store application/request vars in DB ? Interesting... Sure, but given CF 6+'s handling of shared memory vars, I wouldn't consider this unless you are on CF 5 or need to be compatible with it. Anyway... I have a table named Settings with, lets say, the following fields and contents: Settings.BaseHRef (http://foo.com) Settings.SecureHRef (https://www.foo.com) Settings.BasePath (d:\web\foo) Settings.BGColor (##ff) Then I put this in Application.cfm: name="Settings" datasource="#request.myDSN#" maxrows="1" cachedwithin="#CreateTimeSpan(0,0,0,10)#"> SELECT Settings.BaseHRef, Settings.SecureHRef, Settings.BasePath, Settings.BGColor FROM Settings WHERE Settings.PrimaryKey='#SomeValue#' Then when I need to pull, say, the BGColor value I reference Settings.BGColor, or pass it to whatever I'm calling. I set this to 10 seconds, but it can be any other value you care to name. HtH, Matt Robertson [EMAIL PROTECTED] MSB Designs, Inc. http://mysecretbase.com [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
Re: Application vs Request scope
Hi Matt. Do you can share this technique about store application/request vars in DB ? Interesting... > I use request scope. Declaration is short and simple. No resource > drain noticeable. > > Are all shared scope reads safe to no lock now? I thought it was only > session var reads that were completely safe. > > Another thing I use a lot of is a cached db query. I'll have a table > with a structure that has a bunch o' fields. One record per site, > typically. Even the biggest settings tables have no more than 1/2 > dozen records, so the query is fast. Cache it for say 10 seconds and > you have the ability to update the db in almost real time while at the > same time saving yourself a lot of locks, or req var resets. If no > updates, then cache it for 10 hours or something equally palatable. > YMMV. > > > -- > --- > Matt Robertson, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > MSB Designs, Inc. http://mysecretbase.com > --- > -- [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
RE: Application vs Request scope
On CF 5 and below I use the request scope. No locking is required, but you do have multiple copies of the same information using resources (although no more copies than allowable threads on the server). For large data sets or data which takes a while to fetch (queries) I use the Application scope with proper locking. On MX I use the Application scope. Locking for global variables (write once, read many) can be safely ignored. Jim Davis _ From: Chris Alvarado [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2004 4:28 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: Application vs Request scope Hello all, I've been doing CF development for quite some time and as such im fairly set on the way I do things. However I just had a debate with another developer regarding which scope was proper for setting application wide variable (such as DSN names, file paths etc) in regards to locking / efficiency etc. What is everyone's preference and why? I typically use the application scope with proper locking during declaration. . . Is that the "correct" way or is request scope the preferred method and why? Thanks everyone, -chris.alvarado [ application developer ] 4 Guys Interactive, Inc. 281.807.4344 x1716 _ [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
RE: Application vs Request scope
Here's an algorithm succeptable to a race condition:
Check the inventory for a part
Record a sale of that part, deducting the number sold from the inventory
count
Here's the chain of events that demonstrates:
Clerk A checks the inventory system for part #1138 and there are 3 left
Clerk B checks the inventory system for part #1138 and there are 3 left
Clerk A records a sale of one part, updating inventory to 2 (3-1)
Clerk B records a sale of two parts, updating inventory to 1 (3-2)
The system says there is 1 left, but all three were sold. That's a race
condition. With locking, clerk B can't check the inventory until clerk A
finishes his update, so he'll read the value '2' not '3', and the system
will stay in sync.
Here's another:
If (NOT structKeyExists(application, "myThing")) {
Application.myThing = createObject("component", "path.to.cfc");
Application.myThing.init();
}
Application.myThing.doMethod();
And the chain of events:
Req1: structKeyExists() - no
Req1: createObject()
Req2: structKeyExists() - yes
Req2: doMethod()
Req1: init();
Req1: doMethod();
Notice the first doMethod() call is before the cfc's init() method is
called. Legal, but usually not what you want at all.
Cheers,
barneyb
> -Original Message-
> From: Chris Alvarado [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2004 2:12 PM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: RE: Application vs Request scope
>
> Can you please describe a race condition to me?
>
>
>
> I know what it means conceptually, basically when you have one thing
> that needs to happen before another an not simultaneously, but I cant
> really think of an instance where this would be the case.
>
>
>
> Thanks again,
>
>
>
> -chris.alvarado
>
> [ application developer ]
>
> 4 Guys Interactive, Inc.
>
> 281.807.4344 x1716
>
>
>
>
>
> _
>
> From: Barney Boisvert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2004 3:57 PM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: RE: Application vs Request scope
>
>
>
> > Are all shared scope reads safe to no lock now? I thought it
> > was only session var reads that were completely safe.
>
> In CFMX, everything is completely safe to use without any
> locking. You
> only
> ever need to lock for race conditions.
>
> > Another thing I use a lot of is a cached db query.
>
> This can generally be accomplished better by the DB (if your
> DB supports
> it;
> I use MySQL which does, I don't know about others), or by some kind of
> intelligent cache. For simple stuff cachedWithin works well, but when
> you
> need more control than a simple delay, an encapsulated CFC (or better
> yet, a
> general purpose cache) stored in the application scope is usually a
> better
> way to go, IMHO.
>
> Best of all would be an encapsulated persistance mechanism,
> because then
> you
> can cache with INSANE aggresiveness, because that single interface has
> all
> updates passing through it, which means you know exactly when you have
> to
> flush, and you never flush when it's not needed.
>
> Cheers,
> barneyb
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Matt Robertson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2004 1:48 PM
> > To: CF-Talk
> > Subject: Re: Application vs Request scope
> >
> > I use request scope. Declaration is short and simple. No
> > resource drain noticeable.
> >
> >
> > Another thing I use a lot of is a cached db query. I'll have
> > a table with a structure that has a bunch o' fields. One
> > record per site, typically. Even the biggest settings tables
> > have no more than 1/2 dozen records, so the query is fast.
> > Cache it for say 10 seconds and you have the ability to
> > update the db in almost real time while at the same time
> > saving yourself a lot of locks, or req var resets. If no
> > updates, then cache it for 10 hours or something equally
> > palatable. YMMV.
> >
> >
> > --
> > ---
> > Matt Robertson, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > MSB Designs, Inc. http://mysecretbase.com
> > ---
> >
> > --
> >
> >
>
> _
>
>
>
>
[Todays Threads]
[This Message]
[Subscription]
[Fast Unsubscribe]
[User Settings]
Re: Application vs Request scope
Chris Alvarado wrote: > Can you please describe a race condition to me? > > I know what it means conceptually, basically when you have one thing > that needs to happen before another an not simultaneously, but I cant > really think of an instance where this would be the case. Imagine the foloowing code: If it is run with the following values, everything goes well: a = 1 b = 100 c = 1 And with these values, everything works as well: a = 1000 b = 1 c = -1 But if you run 2 instances, it becomes a mess. Since both loops share the same index, one will incrementing the index, and the other will decrementing it. If they are both equally fast this will effectively become an infinite loop. Jochem -- I don't get it immigrants don't work and steal our jobs - Loesje [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
RE: Application vs Request scope
Yep, CF and the underlying Java runtime automatically protects against memory corruption no matter what and how a variable is used. So you're 100% safe from that. Cheers, barneyb > -Original Message- > From: Matt Robertson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2004 2:08 PM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: RE: Application vs Request scope > > Barney Boisvert wrote: > >In CFMX, everything is completely safe to use without any locking. > >You only ever need to lock for race conditions. > > *everything* as in reads AND writes? I could have sworn the > rule was reads only. > > OMIGOD I helped propagate another locking thread. There's > only one honorable thing to do. I'm going over to the office > window and > > A*A*A*A*AAAaahh... > > *splat* > > [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
RE: Application vs Request scope
Can you please describe a race condition to me? I know what it means conceptually, basically when you have one thing that needs to happen before another an not simultaneously, but I cant really think of an instance where this would be the case. Thanks again, -chris.alvarado [ application developer ] 4 Guys Interactive, Inc. 281.807.4344 x1716 _ From: Barney Boisvert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2004 3:57 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Application vs Request scope > Are all shared scope reads safe to no lock now? I thought it > was only session var reads that were completely safe. In CFMX, everything is completely safe to use without any locking. You only ever need to lock for race conditions. > Another thing I use a lot of is a cached db query. This can generally be accomplished better by the DB (if your DB supports it; I use MySQL which does, I don't know about others), or by some kind of intelligent cache. For simple stuff cachedWithin works well, but when you need more control than a simple delay, an encapsulated CFC (or better yet, a general purpose cache) stored in the application scope is usually a better way to go, IMHO. Best of all would be an encapsulated persistance mechanism, because then you can cache with INSANE aggresiveness, because that single interface has all updates passing through it, which means you know exactly when you have to flush, and you never flush when it's not needed. Cheers, barneyb > -Original Message- > From: Matt Robertson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2004 1:48 PM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: Re: Application vs Request scope > > I use request scope. Declaration is short and simple. No > resource drain noticeable. > > > Another thing I use a lot of is a cached db query. I'll have > a table with a structure that has a bunch o' fields. One > record per site, typically. Even the biggest settings tables > have no more than 1/2 dozen records, so the query is fast. > Cache it for say 10 seconds and you have the ability to > update the db in almost real time while at the same time > saving yourself a lot of locks, or req var resets. If no > updates, then cache it for 10 hours or something equally > palatable. YMMV. > > > -- > --- > Matt Robertson, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > MSB Designs, Inc. http://mysecretbase.com > --- > > -- > > _ [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
RE: Application vs Request scope
Barney Boisvert wrote: >In CFMX, everything is completely safe to use without any locking. >You only ever need to lock for race conditions. *everything* as in reads AND writes? I could have sworn the rule was reads only. OMIGOD I helped propagate another locking thread. There's only one honorable thing to do. I'm going over to the office window and A*A*A*A*AAAaahh... *splat* [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
RE: Application vs Request scope
> Are all shared scope reads safe to no lock now? I thought it > was only session var reads that were completely safe. > No, im MX they are all safe - you only have to worry about race conditions. [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
RE: Application vs Request scope
> Are all shared scope reads safe to no lock now? I thought it > was only session var reads that were completely safe. In CFMX, everything is completely safe to use without any locking. You only ever need to lock for race conditions. > Another thing I use a lot of is a cached db query. This can generally be accomplished better by the DB (if your DB supports it; I use MySQL which does, I don't know about others), or by some kind of intelligent cache. For simple stuff cachedWithin works well, but when you need more control than a simple delay, an encapsulated CFC (or better yet, a general purpose cache) stored in the application scope is usually a better way to go, IMHO. Best of all would be an encapsulated persistance mechanism, because then you can cache with INSANE aggresiveness, because that single interface has all updates passing through it, which means you know exactly when you have to flush, and you never flush when it's not needed. Cheers, barneyb > -Original Message- > From: Matt Robertson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2004 1:48 PM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: Re: Application vs Request scope > > I use request scope. Declaration is short and simple. No > resource drain noticeable. > > > Another thing I use a lot of is a cached db query. I'll have > a table with a structure that has a bunch o' fields. One > record per site, typically. Even the biggest settings tables > have no more than 1/2 dozen records, so the query is fast. > Cache it for say 10 seconds and you have the ability to > update the db in almost real time while at the same time > saving yourself a lot of locks, or req var resets. If no > updates, then cache it for 10 hours or something equally > palatable. YMMV. > > > -- > --- > Matt Robertson, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > MSB Designs, Inc. http://mysecretbase.com > --- > > -- > > [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
Re: Application vs Request scope
I use request scope. Declaration is short and simple. No resource drain noticeable. Are all shared scope reads safe to no lock now? I thought it was only session var reads that were completely safe. Another thing I use a lot of is a cached db query. I'll have a table with a structure that has a bunch o' fields. One record per site, typically. Even the biggest settings tables have no more than 1/2 dozen records, so the query is fast. Cache it for say 10 seconds and you have the ability to update the db in almost real time while at the same time saving yourself a lot of locks, or req var resets. If no updates, then cache it for 10 hours or something equally palatable. YMMV. -- --- Matt Robertson, [EMAIL PROTECTED] MSB Designs, Inc. http://mysecretbase.com --- -- [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
Application vs Request scope
Hello all, I've been doing CF development for quite some time and as such im fairly set on the way I do things. However I just had a debate with another developer regarding which scope was proper for setting application wide variable (such as DSN names, file paths etc) in regards to locking / efficiency etc. What is everyone's preference and why? I typically use the application scope with proper locking during declaration. . . Is that the "correct" way or is request scope the preferred method and why? Thanks everyone, -chris.alvarado [ application developer ] 4 Guys Interactive, Inc. 281.807.4344 x1716 [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
RE: CFC from App to Request scope?
You shouldn't need to worry about that. [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
Re: CFC from App to Request scope?
Thanks for taking the time to respond. I got all of your points except
for one sentence, so I'll pick it apart:
>However, if you lock the intantiation of the component without
>requiring read locks
You lost me there. Sorry, if it's a couple-liner, would you show me in
code?
>then you can pull all the CFLOCK tags inside the CFC
>(when it manipulates instance data)
Actually, is it only instance data that I have to worry about? As a
matter of fact, none of my methods modifies instance data, they only
read the instance variables.
>so your code isn't littered with CFLOCKs.
My CFC follows, in case it helps.
Thanks again,
Jamie
returntype="helpDef">
// the following querySim has been shortened for this example
request.querySim("
definitionQry
termId, type, term, definition, example
communityResults | component | Community Results | Measureable,
long-term outcomes achieved by individuals, families, and communities.
|
programResults | component | Program Results | Short-term outcomes
related to unit leadership, informal networks, and program agencies. |
communityCapacity | component | Community Capacity | The extent to
which community members demonstrate a sense of shared responsibility
for their community and a collective competence (i.e., a community's
belief in its capability) to respond to community challenges. |
");
// cache queries for a long time (30 days)
cacheSpan = createTimeSpan(30,0,0,0);
// alternate nil span for clearing query caches
nilSpan = createTimeSpan(0,0,0,0);
returntype="query">
default="all">
default="false">
SELECT term
FROM definitionQry
WHERE 0=0
AND termId = '#termId#'
AND type = '#type#'
returntype="string">
default="false">
cachedwithin="#cacheSpan#">
SELECT definition
FROM definitionQry
WHERE termId = '#termId#'
AND type = '#type#'
returntype="query">
default="all">
default="false">
SELECT term, definition
FROM definitionQry
WHERE 0=0
AND termId = '#termId#'
AND type = '#type#'
output="true" returntype="string">
default="all">
default="false">
clearCache="#clearCache#")>
#term# - #definition#
[Todays Threads]
[This Message]
[Subscription]
[Fast Unsubscribe]
[User Settings]
RE: CFC from App to Request scope?
>The reason I tried to duplicate into the request scope: To minimize >the need for locks on the application-scope reads. (Feel free to >refute that one, too. :) Love to... You don't need to lock variables in CFMX to keep from memory fragmentation and server crashing. This is done for you by Java. You do need to lock if there is potential for a race condition, where 2 people could write to the same variable and cause general application havoc (for instance, 2 people selecting the same unique record accidentally). If your application scoped CFC reads and writes variables that can make changes to all users on your site and can cause race conditions, you should lock, however, do the locking IN the CFC, around the lines that require the locks, not outside and around it. -nathan strutz [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
Re: CFC from App to Request scope?
[Whoops, replied to the newsgroup only the first time] On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 13:38:40 -0600, "Raymond Camden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Simply put - you can't duplicate a CFC. Why do you need the duplicate? Okay, that explains that, then. Thanks. The reason I tried to duplicate into the request scope: To minimize the need for locks on the application-scope reads. (Feel free to refute that one, too. :) Thanks, Jamie [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
RE: CFC from App to Request scope?
There isn't a need to duplicate() it then. Request.myCFC=Application.myCFC -Original Message- From: Jamie Jackson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2003 3:01 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: CFC from App to Request scope? On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 13:38:40 -0600, "Raymond Camden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Simply put - you can't duplicate a CFC. Why do you need the duplicate? Okay, that explains that, then. Thanks. The reason I tried to duplicate into the request scope: To minimize the need for locks on the application-scope reads. (Feel free to refute that one, too. :) Thanks, Jamie [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
Re: CFC from App to Request scope?
On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 13:38:40 -0600, "Raymond Camden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Simply put - you can't duplicate a CFC. Why do you need the duplicate? Okay, that explains that, then. Thanks. The reason I tried to duplicate into the request scope: To minimize the need for locks on the application-scope reads. (Feel free to refute that one, too. :) Thanks, Jamie [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
RE: CFC from App to Request scope?
You can't use duplicate on a CFC and get a CFC. Instead, you get some bizarre CFC/Struct hybrid. You have to use the CFC in the application scope directly, along with the locks. However, if you lock the intantiation of the component without requiring read locks, then you can pull all the CFLOCK tags inside the CFC (when it manipulates instance data), so your code isn't littered with CFLOCKs. Basically, the idea of locking the instantiation is to ensure that no request can get past the instantiation code without having an instance available to it, and that multiple instances will never be instantiated. Here's some code to do it: If you need to instantiate multiple application variables, that'll work too. You only need to check the existance of one of them (ideally a single-purpose flag variable), and set them all in the same place as the component instantiation. -Original Message- From: Jamie Jackson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2003 11:25 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: CFC from App to Request scope? The following doesn't seem to work: I'm trying to get my object to persist, but (I think) I would prefer to access the object via the request scope to reduce the number of locks needed. If I call a method on request.def, it's missing instance variables (and throwing an error, since they're required by the method), whereas with the application.def, it works fine. scope="APPLICATION"> I'm fairly new to CFCs, so any tips, critiques, or debunkings of my assumptions are welcome. Thanks, Jamie [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
RE: CFC from App to Request scope?
Simply put - you can't duplicate a CFC. Why do you need the duplicate? [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
CFC from App to Request scope?
The following doesn't seem to work: I'm trying to get my object to persist, but (I think) I would prefer to access the object via the request scope to reduce the number of locks needed. If I call a method on request.def, it's missing instance variables (and throwing an error, since they're required by the method), whereas with the application.def, it works fine. scope="APPLICATION"> I'm fairly new to CFCs, so any tips, critiques, or debunkings of my assumptions are welcome. Thanks, Jamie [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
RE: Copying session vars to request scope
> So is it the duplication of the struct that is causing the performance > hit? Yes, that has been my experience. Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ phone: 202-797-5496 fax: 202-797-5444 [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
Re: Copying session vars to request scope
On Tuesday, October 7, 2003, at 06:02 PM, Dave Watts: > In my experience, this has occasionally caused severe performance > degradation, so you'll want to be very careful when doing this. In > general, > I'd try to avoid doing it at all. Really? That is quite surprising. So is it the duplication of the struct that is causing the performance hit? > As others have mentioned, this often isn't necessary with CFMX. I'm just starting to write some code for MX and this is one of the things I am trying to be very careful of > Finally, you should be very careful when attempting to apply common > sense to > expected performance outcomes. Or anything associated with application development in general :-) Thanks to everyone for the links and comments [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
RE: Copying session vars to request scope
> Can anyone see any reason why you wouldn't want to copy session > scope variables to a request scope variable if all you want to do > is to test the values in them but not set them? > > It strikes me that this would be more efficient than locking the > session scope each time you wanted to test the variables. In my experience, this has occasionally caused severe performance degradation, so you'll want to be very careful when doing this. In general, I'd try to avoid doing it at all. As others have mentioned, this often isn't necessary with CFMX. Finally, you should be very careful when attempting to apply common sense to expected performance outcomes. Very often, things don't behave in an outwardly sensible manner, so before implementing something like this, it's a very good idea to do some simple load testing and see what happens in various cases. Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ phone: 202-797-5496 fax: 202-797-5444 [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
Re: Copying session vars to request scope
From experience, using duplicate() when copying a structure from session to request or a local variable could cause a slight, performance degradation. Of course, it depends on how big the structure is. If the structure was big, I would use cflock inline with the assignment code in question, rather than first making a deep copy and then do what I needed to do. Nick Han >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 10/07/03 01:29PM >>> Can anyone see any reason why you wouldn't want to copy session scope variables to a request scope variable if all you want to do is to test the values in them but not set them? It strikes me that this would be more efficient than locking the session scope each time you wanted to test the variables. But then again I might be missing something really obvious :-) [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
RE: Re: Copying session vars to request scope
We have some information on this in our blog here: - http://www.webapper.net/index.cfm?fuseaction=Fuseblog.ShowComments&ArticleID=2002125607 Hth Kind Regards - Mike Brunt Original Message --- Zac, On 10/7/2003 at 16:29, you wrote: ZB> Can anyone see any reason why you wouldn't want to copy session ZB> scope variables to a request scope variable if all you want to do ZB> is to test the values in them but not set them? ZB> It strikes me that this would be more efficient than locking the ZB> session scope each time you wanted to test the variables. If you're on a pre-MX server, I think you're right to go the duplicate() route. On MX, I've read and heard that locking reads isn't really necessary due to changes in the way the server handles 'shared scope' variables: http://www.macromedia.com/support/coldfusion/ts/documents/tn18235.htm ~ Ubqtous ~ [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
Re: Copying session vars to request scope
Zac, On 10/7/2003 at 16:29, you wrote: ZB> Can anyone see any reason why you wouldn't want to copy session ZB> scope variables to a request scope variable if all you want to do ZB> is to test the values in them but not set them? ZB> It strikes me that this would be more efficient than locking the ZB> session scope each time you wanted to test the variables. If you're on a pre-MX server, I think you're right to go the duplicate() route. On MX, I've read and heard that locking reads isn't really necessary due to changes in the way the server handles 'shared scope' variables: http://www.macromedia.com/support/coldfusion/ts/documents/tn18235.htm ~ Ubqtous ~ [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
Copying session vars to request scope
Can anyone see any reason why you wouldn't want to copy session scope variables to a request scope variable if all you want to do is to test the values in them but not set them? It strikes me that this would be more efficient than locking the session scope each time you wanted to test the variables. But then again I might be missing something really obvious :-) [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
RE: Application and Request scope
If I set my site wide DSN in the request scope will this be set every time a template is requested? Should I put the following code in application.cfm Can you access the Request scope from inside CFC's? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 01 October 2003 06:38 To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Application and Request scope i won a free subscription to it, so price isnt an issue, lol personally, i think there is so great stuff in there. Sowhere I think you can do a trial run for free. > Maybe I'm missing an inside joke. but that site just seems really > pricey. $2.00 per article or $25.00 per month? That's more than I pay > for ColdFusion hosting, my ISP, NetFlix, and all magazines. Even > annually (with which you save $100) is 200 bucks a year. > > I don't mind paying for content but there seems to be a tremendous > amount of free, quality content for this stuff. Is the content really > that good? > > Jim Davis > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2003 9:00 PM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: RE: Application and Request scope > > good article today on locking at www.communitymx.com > hint tony, haha! jk > > > > > > > > > > > >> If you're on CFMX locking the Session/Application/Server scopes is not > a >> stability issue as it was in 4.5/5.0 - but it is needed to prevent > race >> conditions. However if you're using them in a "read-only" manner (and >> you're on MX) then locking isn't needed. In 4.5/5.0 locking is needed >> to maintain server integrity. >> >> For your App information - that's up to you. I might suggest, at the >> very least, using the REQUEST scope for them - that way they're >> available to all custom tags as well. >> >> Broadly speaking I generally recommend for users of MX to store this >> stuff in the Application scope: you can read the information with no >> locking and it uses less system resources under load. For CF 4.5/5.0 > I >> > > would say use the Request scope: not having to lock everything is well >> worth the system resources used by repeating the information for each >> request. >> >> Jim Davis >> >> -Original Message- >> From: cfhelp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2003 9:37 AM >> To: CF-Talk >> Subject: RE: Application and Request scope >> >> I read this and now I am questioning my Application. >> >> >> >> I have been building a document Library system. The Application is >> shared >> between all the sites using it by Virtual Directories. >> >> >> >> I use session variables in the login.cfm to set the User information >> (GUID, >> Directory, IsAdmin) after login authentication. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I am not locking the above. >> >> >> >> >> >> Everything seems to be working when multiple users are on the site (on >> the >> same website or sharing). I also named the Application dynamically by >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> sessionmanagement="Yes" >> >> setclientcookies="Yes" >> >> sessiontimeout="#CreateTimeSpan(0,0,30,0)#" >> >> applicationtimeout="#CreateTimeSpan(0,0,30,0)#"> >> >> >> >> Then I just use cfparam to set variables. >> >> >> >> >> >> [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
communitymx: was Application and Request scope
here are some of the articles & tutorials from the coldfusion section, sure is a lot of the things that go round & round on here Exploring the cflock Tag A look at the cflock tag and it's attributes. Unicode and International Character Sets in ColdFusion MX: Part 2 Manipulating Images with Jimg (Part 2) You have not read this article yet Creating a photo gallery using Jimg, the ColdFusion component from DRK 4. Page Based Dynamic Images in an Included File: Method 2 You have not read this article yet Dynamically inserting images into an included file based on the page being called. CMX EZ Mail SB that sends the results of any form to an address of your choosing. Creating a custom CF log In application Creating a custom log in application Manipulating Images with Jimg (Part 1) You have not read this article yet How to manipulate images on the server using Jimg, the ColdFusion CFC from DRK 4. Upload An Image and Insert Its Name Into The Database Uploading an image and inserting it's name into the database Eliminating Extra White Space in Your HTML You have not read this article yet Typically, ColdFusion-generated HTML code has plenty of extra white space. It's easy to get rid of this extra white space. Here's how. Masks in ColdFusion (Part 2): Formatting Times You have not read this article yet How to use ColdFusion's numeric masks. CMX Email Any Form Submit any form to a page you apply this server behavior to. Using Authorize.net with ColdFusionMX How to use Authorize.net as a payment gateway on your ColdFusion site. Porting Pollster to SQL Server You have not read this article yet How to modify the Pollster application from DRK 4 to run on SQL Server. Masks in ColdFusion (Part 1): Dates and Times You have not read this article yet Using ColdFusion Locales You have not read this article yet ColdFusion MX has done a lot to make internationalized applications easier to build. Aside from it's built-in Unicode support, ColdFusion MX supports the use of Locales to make it easy to generate the output of dates, times and other data in a language and culturally-appropriate fashion. This quick tutorial shows you how to use these locales in your applications. Unicode and International Character Sets in Coldfusion MX: Part 1 You have not read this article yet ColdFusion MX is fully Unicode compliant but making everything work properly for international character sets form the browser through to the back end database requires a firm understanding of Unicode and how to use it in ColdFusion MX. Email a Forgotten Password in ColdFusion Learn how to email a user's forgotten password to them automatically. Page Based Dynamic Images in an Included File: Method 1 You have not read this article yet Dynamically inserting images into an included file based on the page being called. High Volume Mail without CFMAIL, Part 3: Handling Bad Addresses and Bounced Messages You have not read this article yet This is the third and final part of a series of articles on using outside Perl scripts to manage the delivery of mail to large lists from ColdFusion. This article addresses how to handle incorrectly formed addresses, banned users and bounced messages. ColdFusion MX: The Red Sky Upgrade You have not read this article yet ColdFusion MX 6.1 updater (code named Red Sky) was released today and offers much more than simple bug fixes. The release can be considered a true upgrade. The best part of the upgrade is that it's free. CMX CF Image Popup This server behavior will open a popup window containing a picture from your database, when a particular record is selected on the page. High Volume Mail without CFMAIL, Part 2: Sending Personalized Messages to a Mailing List You have not read this article yet This is the second in a three-part series showing how you can use Perl to bypass limitations in CFMAIL for sending mailings to big lists. This installment shows how to personalize messages sent to the list. CF Administrator: Debugging Settings You have not read this article yet First in a series of articles on the ColdFusion Administrator. This article will explore the debugging options in the administrator and what they mean. High Volume Mail without CFMAIL, Part 1: Sending a Message to a Big List You have not read this article yet ColdFusion's CFMAIL is less than adequate for high-volume purposes. This tutorial shows how to implement your high-volume mail system on Unix-based ColdFusion servers. Using a ColdFusion Custom Tag as a Site Template Part 3 You have not read this article yet ColdFusion custom tags allow you to build a flexible template for your site that will feed every page on the site. Part 3 will show how to incorporate a table layout or a div layout in setting up your template. CMX CF Random Image This is a Server Behavior for displaying a random image every time your page is refreshed or revisited. CF_CMXIMAGE: A Custom tag for image manipulation on the server This custom ta
RE: Application and Request scope
i won a free subscription to it, so price isnt an issue, lol personally, i think there is so great stuff in there. Sowhere I think you can do a trial run for free. > Maybe I'm missing an inside joke. but that site just seems really > pricey. $2.00 per article or $25.00 per month? That's more than I pay > for ColdFusion hosting, my ISP, NetFlix, and all magazines. Even > annually (with which you save $100) is 200 bucks a year. > > I don't mind paying for content but there seems to be a tremendous > amount of free, quality content for this stuff. Is the content really > that good? > > Jim Davis > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2003 9:00 PM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: RE: Application and Request scope > > good article today on locking at www.communitymx.com > hint tony, haha! jk > > > > > > > > > > > >> If you're on CFMX locking the Session/Application/Server scopes is not > a >> stability issue as it was in 4.5/5.0 - but it is needed to prevent > race >> conditions. However if you're using them in a "read-only" manner (and >> you're on MX) then locking isn't needed. In 4.5/5.0 locking is needed >> to maintain server integrity. >> >> For your App information - that's up to you. I might suggest, at the >> very least, using the REQUEST scope for them - that way they're >> available to all custom tags as well. >> >> Broadly speaking I generally recommend for users of MX to store this >> stuff in the Application scope: you can read the information with no >> locking and it uses less system resources under load. For CF 4.5/5.0 > I >> > > would say use the Request scope: not having to lock everything is well >> worth the system resources used by repeating the information for each >> request. >> >> Jim Davis >> >> -Original Message- >> From: cfhelp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2003 9:37 AM >> To: CF-Talk >> Subject: RE: Application and Request scope >> >> I read this and now I am questioning my Application. >> >> >> >> I have been building a document Library system. The Application is >> shared >> between all the sites using it by Virtual Directories. >> >> >> >> I use session variables in the login.cfm to set the User information >> (GUID, >> Directory, IsAdmin) after login authentication. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I am not locking the above. >> >> >> >> >> >> Everything seems to be working when multiple users are on the site (on >> the >> same website or sharing). I also named the Application dynamically by >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> sessionmanagement="Yes" >> >> setclientcookies="Yes" >> >> sessiontimeout="#CreateTimeSpan(0,0,30,0)#" >> >> applicationtimeout="#CreateTimeSpan(0,0,30,0)#"> >> >> >> >> Then I just use cfparam to set variables. >> >> >> >> >> >> [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
RE: Application and Request scope
Of course but you would only set them once and "read" them and not change them within the application. At least that is how I use them. My hosting provider (CFMX updater 3) is flaky at the best of times but this seems to work for my applications. If you are in a clustered environment then YES application scope is the one to use - and lock (within the CFIF ISDEFINED) code. Remember that APPLICATION variables are scoped according to the immediate "Application.cfm" file it finds. All the way up to the root directory. If your "guestbook" application name is shared by another website on the same host, also called "guestbook" then you could be in trouble. This is where the application scope is not the scope to use. With the REQUEST scope it is limited to your own application environment - as long as you at least have an Application.cfm in your site root to define your request vars. And NEVER use the SERVER scope in a shared environment without due caution. [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
RE: Application and Request scope
Just being a smart ass - but in this case it WILL set them every time since the Request Scope is non-persistent. Change that "Request" to "Application" and everything you say is completely correct. ;^) Jim Davis -Original Message- From: Peter Tilbrook [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2003 9:05 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Application and Request scope But remember when setting vars in the Application.cfm file they are reset on every request for a .cfm template so test to see if a var exists first and, if not, set them all in one go, eg: etc. CF will see that Request.ApplicationVersion is or is not already defined and setup the vars once only. Peter Tilbrook ColdFusion Applications Developer ColdGen Internet Solutions Manager, ACT and Region ColdFusion Users Group (http://www.actcfug.com) 4/73 Tharwa Road Queanbeyan, NSW, 2620 AUSTRALIA Telephone: +61-2-6284-2727 Mobile: +61-0439-401-823 E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] World Wide Web: http://www.coldgen.com/ -Original Message- From: Jim Davis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, 1 October 2003 10:52 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Application and Request scope If you're on CFMX locking the Session/Application/Server scopes is not a stability issue as it was in 4.5/5.0 - but it is needed to prevent race conditions. However if you're using them in a "read-only" manner (and you're on MX) then locking isn't needed. In 4.5/5.0 locking is needed to maintain server integrity. For your App information - that's up to you. I might suggest, at the very least, using the REQUEST scope for them - that way they're available to all custom tags as well. Broadly speaking I generally recommend for users of MX to store this stuff in the Application scope: you can read the information with no locking and it uses less system resources under load. For CF 4.5/5.0 I would say use the Request scope: not having to lock everything is well worth the system resources used by repeating the information for each request. Jim Davis -Original Message- From: cfhelp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2003 9:37 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Application and Request scope I read this and now I am questioning my Application. I have been building a document Library system. The Application is shared between all the sites using it by Virtual Directories. I use session variables in the login.cfm to set the User information (GUID, Directory, IsAdmin) after login authentication. I am not locking the above. Everything seems to be working when multiple users are on the site (on the same website or sharing). I also named the Application dynamically by sessionmanagement="Yes" setclientcookies="Yes" sessiontimeout="#CreateTimeSpan(0,0,30,0)#" applicationtimeout="#CreateTimeSpan(0,0,30,0)#"> Then I just use cfparam to set variables. [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
RE: Application and Request scope
Maybe I'm missing an inside joke. but that site just seems really pricey. $2.00 per article or $25.00 per month? That's more than I pay for ColdFusion hosting, my ISP, NetFlix, and all magazines. Even annually (with which you save $100) is 200 bucks a year. I don't mind paying for content but there seems to be a tremendous amount of free, quality content for this stuff. Is the content really that good? Jim Davis -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2003 9:00 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Application and Request scope good article today on locking at www.communitymx.com hint tony, haha! jk > If you're on CFMX locking the Session/Application/Server scopes is not a > stability issue as it was in 4.5/5.0 - but it is needed to prevent race > conditions. However if you're using them in a "read-only" manner (and > you're on MX) then locking isn't needed. In 4.5/5.0 locking is needed > to maintain server integrity. > > For your App information - that's up to you. I might suggest, at the > very least, using the REQUEST scope for them - that way they're > available to all custom tags as well. > > Broadly speaking I generally recommend for users of MX to store this > stuff in the Application scope: you can read the information with no > locking and it uses less system resources under load. For CF 4.5/5.0 I > would say use the Request scope: not having to lock everything is well > worth the system resources used by repeating the information for each > request. > > Jim Davis > > -Original Message- > From: cfhelp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2003 9:37 AM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: RE: Application and Request scope > > I read this and now I am questioning my Application. > > > > I have been building a document Library system. The Application is > shared > between all the sites using it by Virtual Directories. > > > > I use session variables in the login.cfm to set the User information > (GUID, > Directory, IsAdmin) after login authentication. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am not locking the above. > > > > > > Everything seems to be working when multiple users are on the site (on > the > same website or sharing). I also named the Application dynamically by > > > > > > > > sessionmanagement="Yes" > > setclientcookies="Yes" > > sessiontimeout="#CreateTimeSpan(0,0,30,0)#" > > applicationtimeout="#CreateTimeSpan(0,0,30,0)#"> > > > > Then I just use cfparam to set variables. > > > > > > [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
RE: Application and Request scope
i hear ya ;) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2003 9:00 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Application and Request scope good article today on locking at www.communitymx.com hint tony, haha! jk > If you're on CFMX locking the Session/Application/Server scopes is not a > stability issue as it was in 4.5/5.0 - but it is needed to prevent race > conditions. However if you're using them in a "read-only" manner (and > you're on MX) then locking isn't needed. In 4.5/5.0 locking is needed > to maintain server integrity. > > For your App information - that's up to you. I might suggest, at the > very least, using the REQUEST scope for them - that way they're > available to all custom tags as well. > > Broadly speaking I generally recommend for users of MX to store this > stuff in the Application scope: you can read the information with no > locking and it uses less system resources under load. For CF 4.5/5.0 I > would say use the Request scope: not having to lock everything is well > worth the system resources used by repeating the information for each > request. > > Jim Davis > > -Original Message- > From: cfhelp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2003 9:37 AM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: RE: Application and Request scope > > I read this and now I am questioning my Application. > > > > I have been building a document Library system. The Application is > shared > between all the sites using it by Virtual Directories. > > > > I use session variables in the login.cfm to set the User information > (GUID, > Directory, IsAdmin) after login authentication. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am not locking the above. > > > > > > Everything seems to be working when multiple users are on the site (on > the > same website or sharing). I also named the Application dynamically by > > > > > > > > sessionmanagement="Yes" > > setclientcookies="Yes" > > sessiontimeout="#CreateTimeSpan(0,0,30,0)#" > > applicationtimeout="#CreateTimeSpan(0,0,30,0)#"> > > > > Then I just use cfparam to set variables. > > > > > > [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
RE: Application and Request scope
But remember when setting vars in the Application.cfm file they are reset on every request for a .cfm template so test to see if a var exists first and, if not, set them all in one go, eg: etc. CF will see that Request.ApplicationVersion is or is not already defined and setup the vars once only. Peter Tilbrook ColdFusion Applications Developer ColdGen Internet Solutions Manager, ACT and Region ColdFusion Users Group (http://www.actcfug.com) 4/73 Tharwa Road Queanbeyan, NSW, 2620 AUSTRALIA Telephone: +61-2-6284-2727 Mobile: +61-0439-401-823 E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] World Wide Web: http://www.coldgen.com/ -Original Message- From: Jim Davis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, 1 October 2003 10:52 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Application and Request scope If you're on CFMX locking the Session/Application/Server scopes is not a stability issue as it was in 4.5/5.0 - but it is needed to prevent race conditions. However if you're using them in a "read-only" manner (and you're on MX) then locking isn't needed. In 4.5/5.0 locking is needed to maintain server integrity. For your App information - that's up to you. I might suggest, at the very least, using the REQUEST scope for them - that way they're available to all custom tags as well. Broadly speaking I generally recommend for users of MX to store this stuff in the Application scope: you can read the information with no locking and it uses less system resources under load. For CF 4.5/5.0 I would say use the Request scope: not having to lock everything is well worth the system resources used by repeating the information for each request. Jim Davis -Original Message- From: cfhelp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2003 9:37 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Application and Request scope I read this and now I am questioning my Application. I have been building a document Library system. The Application is shared between all the sites using it by Virtual Directories. I use session variables in the login.cfm to set the User information (GUID, Directory, IsAdmin) after login authentication. I am not locking the above. Everything seems to be working when multiple users are on the site (on the same website or sharing). I also named the Application dynamically by sessionmanagement="Yes" setclientcookies="Yes" sessiontimeout="#CreateTimeSpan(0,0,30,0)#" applicationtimeout="#CreateTimeSpan(0,0,30,0)#"> Then I just use cfparam to set variables. [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
RE: Application and Request scope
good article today on locking at www.communitymx.com hint tony, haha! jk > If you're on CFMX locking the Session/Application/Server scopes is not a > stability issue as it was in 4.5/5.0 - but it is needed to prevent race > conditions. However if you're using them in a "read-only" manner (and > you're on MX) then locking isn't needed. In 4.5/5.0 locking is needed > to maintain server integrity. > > For your App information - that's up to you. I might suggest, at the > very least, using the REQUEST scope for them - that way they're > available to all custom tags as well. > > Broadly speaking I generally recommend for users of MX to store this > stuff in the Application scope: you can read the information with no > locking and it uses less system resources under load. For CF 4.5/5.0 I > would say use the Request scope: not having to lock everything is well > worth the system resources used by repeating the information for each > request. > > Jim Davis > > -Original Message- > From: cfhelp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2003 9:37 AM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: RE: Application and Request scope > > I read this and now I am questioning my Application. > > > > I have been building a document Library system. The Application is > shared > between all the sites using it by Virtual Directories. > > > > I use session variables in the login.cfm to set the User information > (GUID, > Directory, IsAdmin) after login authentication. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am not locking the above. > > > > > > Everything seems to be working when multiple users are on the site (on > the > same website or sharing). I also named the Application dynamically by > > > > > > > > sessionmanagement="Yes" > > setclientcookies="Yes" > > sessiontimeout="#CreateTimeSpan(0,0,30,0)#" > > applicationtimeout="#CreateTimeSpan(0,0,30,0)#"> > > > > Then I just use cfparam to set variables. > > > > > > [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
RE: Application and Request scope
If you're on CFMX locking the Session/Application/Server scopes is not a stability issue as it was in 4.5/5.0 - but it is needed to prevent race conditions. However if you're using them in a "read-only" manner (and you're on MX) then locking isn't needed. In 4.5/5.0 locking is needed to maintain server integrity. For your App information - that's up to you. I might suggest, at the very least, using the REQUEST scope for them - that way they're available to all custom tags as well. Broadly speaking I generally recommend for users of MX to store this stuff in the Application scope: you can read the information with no locking and it uses less system resources under load. For CF 4.5/5.0 I would say use the Request scope: not having to lock everything is well worth the system resources used by repeating the information for each request. Jim Davis -Original Message- From: cfhelp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2003 9:37 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Application and Request scope I read this and now I am questioning my Application. I have been building a document Library system. The Application is shared between all the sites using it by Virtual Directories. I use session variables in the login.cfm to set the User information (GUID, Directory, IsAdmin) after login authentication. I am not locking the above. Everything seems to be working when multiple users are on the site (on the same website or sharing). I also named the Application dynamically by sessionmanagement="Yes" setclientcookies="Yes" sessiontimeout="#CreateTimeSpan(0,0,30,0)#" applicationtimeout="#CreateTimeSpan(0,0,30,0)#"> Then I just use cfparam to set variables. [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
RE: Application and Request scope
Rick, you should lock Application, Server and Session variables. Session because if you use Frames or if you have slow running requests users can launch more than one thread which can cause memory corruption. Here is how those three scopes are seen: - SERVER By all CFAPPLICATIONs on a single physical server. APPLICATION By all users in a single CFAPPLICATION SESSION By a single user in a single Session. I have another suggestion go to our blog at http://www.webapper.net <http://www.webapper.net/> and search for CFLOCK you will find a few pointers there that may help. Kind Regards - Mike Brunt Webapper Services LLC Web Site http://www.webapper.com Blog http://www.webapper.net Webapper -Original Message- From: cfhelp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2003 6:37 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Application and Request scope I read this and now I am questioning my Application. I have been building a document Library system. The Application is shared between all the sites using it by Virtual Directories. I use session variables in the login.cfm to set the User information (GUID, Directory, IsAdmin) after login authentication. I am not locking the above. Everything seems to be working when multiple users are on the site (on the same website or sharing). I also named the Application dynamically by sessionmanagement="Yes" setclientcookies="Yes" sessiontimeout="#CreateTimeSpan(0,0,30,0)#" applicationtimeout="#CreateTimeSpan(0,0,30,0)#"> Then I just use cfparam to set variables. [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
RE: Application and Request scope
I read this and now I am questioning my Application. I have been building a document Library system. The Application is shared between all the sites using it by Virtual Directories. I use session variables in the login.cfm to set the User information (GUID, Directory, IsAdmin) after login authentication. I am not locking the above. Everything seems to be working when multiple users are on the site (on the same website or sharing). I also named the Application dynamically by sessionmanagement="Yes" setclientcookies="Yes" sessiontimeout="#CreateTimeSpan(0,0,30,0)#" applicationtimeout="#CreateTimeSpan(0,0,30,0)#"> Then I just use cfparam to set variables. [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
RE: Application and Request scope
I explain this pretty thoroughly in my guide to CF variables here: http://www.depressedpress.com/DepressedPress/Content/ColdFusion/Guides/V ariables/Index.cfm I'm sure other people have other (perhaps better) opinions but that should give you the skinny at least. Jim Davis -Original Message- From: Paul Wilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2003 8:08 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: Application and Request scope I've been reading a few threads that advise on storing various things (that's a technical description btw) in the application or request scope. Why is this a good idea and what things should be stored there? Thanks! _ [Todays [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
Application and Request scope
I've been reading a few threads that advise on storing various things (that's a technical description btw) in the application or request scope. Why is this a good idea and what things should be stored there? Thanks! [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
RE: session vs. request scope speed in MX
Nevermind. Christian just managed to answer it in another thread. :-) How is it that every time I post here, the answer magically pops up and my thread becomes moot? I think the list is out to get me. Yeah, that's it. -- Ben Doom Programmer & General Lackey Moonbow Software, Inc : -Original Message- : From: Ben Doom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] : Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2003 11:05 AM : To: CF-Talk : Subject: session vs. request scope speed in MX : : : I understand that in CF5 there's a decent speed difference between using : locked session variables and request variables. Now that CF takes care of : locking of session variables, is there still enough performance difference : to warrant copying the session variables to the request scope if I'm going : to be reading/writing them a lot, or should I just stop worrying about it? : : : -- Ben Doom : Programmer & General Lackey : Moonbow Software, Inc : : : ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for dependable ColdFusion Hosting. Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
session vs. request scope speed in MX
I understand that in CF5 there's a decent speed difference between using locked session variables and request variables. Now that CF takes care of locking of session variables, is there still enough performance difference to warrant copying the session variables to the request scope if I'm going to be reading/writing them a lot, or should I just stop worrying about it? -- Ben Doom Programmer & General Lackey Moonbow Software, Inc ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=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: Opinion: CFC / Request scope question.
Which is what I do, but why would this be anti-OOP? Are you sayiing to
follow the true OOP standards, that in each CFC, I have to make a
/ or just initialize those external objects I want to use?
~Todd
O Fri, 7 Jun 2002, Raymond Camden wrote:
> I don't think that is what he is asking Ben. He is not talking about
> making the CFC depend on request vars, rather, he is talking about
> putting an instance of a CFC in the request scope. So he can do crap
> like this:
>
> application.cfm:
>
>
> foo.cfm:
>
> sometag.cfm:
>
> stuff;
> stuff;
> more stuff;
> request.logger.log("info","Added user bob");
>
>
>
>
> ===
> Raymond Camden, ColdFusion Jedi Master for Macromedia
>
> Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Yahoo IM : morpheus
>
> "My ally is the Force, and a powerful ally it is." - Yoda
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Ben Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 10:44 AM
> > To: CF-Talk
> > Subject: RE: Opinion: CFC / Request scope question.
> >
> >
> > > However, I'd still like to know peoples
> > > thoughts on pushing a component into the request scope.
> >
> > I have not worked *too* much with CFCs, with the exception of
> > with Flash
> > Remoting, but the idea of putting the CFCs in the request
> > scope seems to be
> > a bit anti-OO to me. I have always thought that you should
> > pass references
> > or values to the CFC you are calling. It doesn't seem very
> > scalable to make
> > a CFC assume something is already created in the request
> > scope or even that
> > the variable that is created is specifically named a certain way.
> >
> >
> >
> > Ben Johnson
> > Hostworks, Inc.
> >
> >
>
__
This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for
dependable ColdFusion Hosting.
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
RE: Opinion: CFC / Request scope question.
Ah, now THAT is a different matter. In general, I agree, it's a bad idea. However, if you are building a framework where a set of CFCs work together (in a package perhaps) then it may be safe. Spectra made heavy use of stuff like this - and I think it made sense since everything was so tightly wound together. Another view on this - most of the custom tags I write that do DB stuff will use #application.dsn# or #request.app.dsn# for the datasource. Since the custom tag is _for_ the application, I don't feel bad about this at all. === Raymond Camden, ColdFusion Jedi Master for Macromedia Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo IM : morpheus "My ally is the Force, and a powerful ally it is." - Yoda > -Original Message- > From: Ben Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 11:01 AM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: RE: Opinion: CFC / Request scope question. > > > > I don't think that is what he is asking Ben. He is not talking about > > making the CFC depend on request vars, rather, he is talking about > > putting an instance of a CFC in the request scope. > > Sorry, I quoted the wrong section. I can definitely > understand using CFCs > in the request scope for that reason. Here's what I mean to quote: > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > > Now .. 'request.x' is available to even other cfcs without > having to make > > an additional invoke/createObject call. > > > > > Ben Johnson > Hostworks, Inc. > > __ This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for dependable ColdFusion Hosting. FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
RE: Opinion: CFC / Request scope question.
> I don't think that is what he is asking Ben. He is not talking about > making the CFC depend on request vars, rather, he is talking about > putting an instance of a CFC in the request scope. Sorry, I quoted the wrong section. I can definitely understand using CFCs in the request scope for that reason. Here's what I mean to quote: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > Now .. 'request.x' is available to even other cfcs without having to make > an additional invoke/createObject call. Ben Johnson Hostworks, Inc. __ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
RE: Opinion: CFC / Request scope question.
I don't think that is what he is asking Ben. He is not talking about
making the CFC depend on request vars, rather, he is talking about
putting an instance of a CFC in the request scope. So he can do crap
like this:
application.cfm:
foo.cfm:
sometag.cfm:
stuff;
stuff;
more stuff;
request.logger.log("info","Added user bob");
===
Raymond Camden, ColdFusion Jedi Master for Macromedia
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Yahoo IM : morpheus
"My ally is the Force, and a powerful ally it is." - Yoda
> -Original Message-
> From: Ben Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 10:44 AM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: RE: Opinion: CFC / Request scope question.
>
>
> > However, I'd still like to know peoples
> > thoughts on pushing a component into the request scope.
>
> I have not worked *too* much with CFCs, with the exception of
> with Flash
> Remoting, but the idea of putting the CFCs in the request
> scope seems to be
> a bit anti-OO to me. I have always thought that you should
> pass references
> or values to the CFC you are calling. It doesn't seem very
> scalable to make
> a CFC assume something is already created in the request
> scope or even that
> the variable that is created is specifically named a certain way.
>
>
>
> Ben Johnson
> Hostworks, Inc.
>
>
__
This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for
dependable ColdFusion Hosting.
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
RE: Opinion: CFC / Request scope question.
> However, I'd still like to know peoples > thoughts on pushing a component into the request scope. I have not worked *too* much with CFCs, with the exception of with Flash Remoting, but the idea of putting the CFCs in the request scope seems to be a bit anti-OO to me. I have always thought that you should pass references or values to the CFC you are calling. It doesn't seem very scalable to make a CFC assume something is already created in the request scope or even that the variable that is created is specifically named a certain way. Ben Johnson Hostworks, Inc. __ 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 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
RE: Opinion: CFC / Request scope question.
I'm asking about pushing it into the request scope more than anything.
Just checking to see if people cringe at the thought or not. =)
Thanks,
~Todd
On Fri, 7 Jun 2002, Raymond Camden wrote:
> Are you asking about pushing it into the request scope or putting it
> into a variable in general? I don' think there is anything wrong with
> either. Certainly if you want your custom tags to use the CFC it makes
> since to put it in the request scope.
>
> ===
> Raymond Camden, ColdFusion Jedi Master for Macromedia
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 10:19 AM
> > To: CF-Talk
> > Subject: RE: Opinion: CFC / Request scope question.
> >
> >
> > I actually use #2 a lot (cept, I wrap script around all that)...
> > I find it easier to work with. However, I'd still like to
> > know peoples
> > thoughts on pushing a component into the request scope.
> >
> > Just to clarify:
> >
> > x = createObject("component","test");
> > request.x = x;
> >
> >
> > Now .. 'request.x' is available to even other cfcs without
> > having to make
> > an additional invoke/createObject call.
> >
> > ~Todd
__
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
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
RE: Opinion: CFC / Request scope question.
Are you asking about pushing it into the request scope or putting it
into a variable in general? I don' think there is anything wrong with
either. Certainly if you want your custom tags to use the CFC it makes
since to put it in the request scope.
===
Raymond Camden, ColdFusion Jedi Master for Macromedia
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Yahoo IM : morpheus
"My ally is the Force, and a powerful ally it is." - Yoda
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 10:19 AM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: RE: Opinion: CFC / Request scope question.
>
>
> I actually use #2 a lot (cept, I wrap script around all that)...
> I find it easier to work with. However, I'd still like to
> know peoples
> thoughts on pushing a component into the request scope.
>
> Just to clarify:
>
> x = createObject("component","test");
> request.x = x;
>
>
> Now .. 'request.x' is available to even other cfcs without
> having to make
> an additional invoke/createObject call.
>
> ~Todd
>
> On Fri, 7 Jun 2002, Raymond Camden wrote:
>
> > I think the question can be made a bit more broad - what is better:
> >
> > 1)
> >
> > or
> >
> > 2)
> >
> >
> > In general my feelings are that if you are going to do anything more
> > than call one method, you should use #2. It should be
> quicker (since you
> > have the object already), but more than that, it's handier
> to have the
> > object around I would think.
> >
> > Of course, since CFCs have been out for just a little while
> now, what I
>
__
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
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
RE: Opinion: CFC / Request scope question.
I actually use #2 a lot (cept, I wrap script around all that)...
I find it easier to work with. However, I'd still like to know peoples
thoughts on pushing a component into the request scope.
Just to clarify:
x = createObject("component","test");
request.x = x;
Now .. 'request.x' is available to even other cfcs without having to make
an additional invoke/createObject call.
~Todd
On Fri, 7 Jun 2002, Raymond Camden wrote:
> I think the question can be made a bit more broad - what is better:
>
> 1)
>
> or
>
> 2)
>
>
> In general my feelings are that if you are going to do anything more
> than call one method, you should use #2. It should be quicker (since you
> have the object already), but more than that, it's handier to have the
> object around I would think.
>
> Of course, since CFCs have been out for just a little while now, what I
> think makes sense now will probably change by next Tuesday. ;)
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 10:08 AM
> > Subject: Opinion: CFC / Request scope question.
> >
> > So, I'm pretty familiar with CFCs and getting it to work,
> > etc. I learned
> > that you can actually store a function within the variable
> > scope (in fact,
> > I learned that when you create a UDF, it's actually placed in
> > the variable
> > scope). I also recently learned that you can push a component of an
> > object inside a variable as well (via CreateObject();).
> >
> > I created a 'logging' component that all it does is takes an argument
> > (event_id) and it checks the db if it should log the event
> > and / or notify
> > someone of the event. I pushed this logging component into
> > the request
> > scope and it's now available to all my applications (even other CFCs).
> >
> > I guess my question is, is this a bad thing to do? What's
> > the impact of
> > pushing components into the request scope (besides
> > memory)...? I know
> > there's this holy war going on regarding the 'request' scope as some
> > people say it shouldn't be touched and other people claim
> > that's what it's
> > for.
> >
> > Just looking for opinions...
> >
> > Thanks,
> > ~Todd
> >
__
Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
RE: Opinion: CFC / Request scope question.
That long? :-p Neil Clark Team Macromedia http://www.macromedia.com/go/team Announcing Macromedia MX!! http://www.macromedia.com/software/trial/ -Original Message- From: Raymond Camden [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 07 June 2002 15:16 To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Opinion: CFC / Request scope question. I think the question can be made a bit more broad - what is better: 1) or 2) In general my feelings are that if you are going to do anything more than call one method, you should use #2. It should be quicker (since you have the object already), but more than that, it's handier to have the object around I would think. Of course, since CFCs have been out for just a little while now, what I think makes sense now will probably change by next Tuesday. ;) === Raymond Camden, ColdFusion Jedi Master for Macromedia Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo IM : morpheus "My ally is the Force, and a powerful ally it is." - Yoda > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 10:08 AM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: Opinion: CFC / Request scope question. > > > So, I'm pretty familiar with CFCs and getting it to work, > etc. I learned > that you can actually store a function within the variable > scope (in fact, > I learned that when you create a UDF, it's actually placed in > the variable > scope). I also recently learned that you can push a component of an > object inside a variable as well (via CreateObject();). > > I created a 'logging' component that all it does is takes an argument > (event_id) and it checks the db if it should log the event > and / or notify > someone of the event. I pushed this logging component into > the request > scope and it's now available to all my applications (even other CFCs). > > I guess my question is, is this a bad thing to do? What's > the impact of > pushing components into the request scope (besides > memory)...? I know > there's this holy war going on regarding the 'request' scope as some > people say it shouldn't be touched and other people claim > that's what it's > for. > > Just looking for opinions... > > Thanks, > ~Todd > > -- > > Todd Rafferty ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - http://www.web-rat.com/ | > http://www.flashCFM.com/ - webRat (Moderator)| > http://www.ultrashock.com/ - webRat (Back-end Moderator) | > > > __ Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
RE: Opinion: CFC / Request scope question.
I think the question can be made a bit more broad - what is better: 1) or 2) In general my feelings are that if you are going to do anything more than call one method, you should use #2. It should be quicker (since you have the object already), but more than that, it's handier to have the object around I would think. Of course, since CFCs have been out for just a little while now, what I think makes sense now will probably change by next Tuesday. ;) === Raymond Camden, ColdFusion Jedi Master for Macromedia Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo IM : morpheus "My ally is the Force, and a powerful ally it is." - Yoda > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 10:08 AM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: Opinion: CFC / Request scope question. > > > So, I'm pretty familiar with CFCs and getting it to work, > etc. I learned > that you can actually store a function within the variable > scope (in fact, > I learned that when you create a UDF, it's actually placed in > the variable > scope). I also recently learned that you can push a component of an > object inside a variable as well (via CreateObject();). > > I created a 'logging' component that all it does is takes an argument > (event_id) and it checks the db if it should log the event > and / or notify > someone of the event. I pushed this logging component into > the request > scope and it's now available to all my applications (even other CFCs). > > I guess my question is, is this a bad thing to do? What's > the impact of > pushing components into the request scope (besides > memory)...? I know > there's this holy war going on regarding the 'request' scope as some > people say it shouldn't be touched and other people claim > that's what it's > for. > > Just looking for opinions... > > Thanks, > ~Todd > > -- > > Todd Rafferty ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - http://www.web-rat.com/ | > http://www.flashCFM.com/ - webRat (Moderator)| > http://www.ultrashock.com/ - webRat (Back-end Moderator) | > > > __ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
Opinion: CFC / Request scope question.
So, I'm pretty familiar with CFCs and getting it to work, etc. I learned that you can actually store a function within the variable scope (in fact, I learned that when you create a UDF, it's actually placed in the variable scope). I also recently learned that you can push a component of an object inside a variable as well (via CreateObject();). I created a 'logging' component that all it does is takes an argument (event_id) and it checks the db if it should log the event and / or notify someone of the event. I pushed this logging component into the request scope and it's now available to all my applications (even other CFCs). I guess my question is, is this a bad thing to do? What's the impact of pushing components into the request scope (besides memory)...? I know there's this holy war going on regarding the 'request' scope as some people say it shouldn't be touched and other people claim that's what it's for. Just looking for opinions... Thanks, ~Todd -- Todd Rafferty ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - http://www.web-rat.com/ | http://www.flashCFM.com/ - webRat (Moderator)| http://www.ultrashock.com/ - webRat (Back-end Moderator) | __ Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
