On Dec 31, 2007 8:01 AM, Andy Matthews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I wonder if anyone knows what the differences might be in performance vs
> each of these methods. I sort of suspect that our current method has more
> overhead than the proposed method but I'm not sure how to prove it, or to
> test
My company has a dynamic codebase which programmatically creates 2000+
applications (one for each site we host). Everything unique to a site is
stored in either the app scope, or session scope (for each user). I've
tossed out the concept of changing our codebase to have just ONE application
(per se
MX's locking should save bad data from occuring, but you're completely
right in that it's not a great way in doing it.
One way folks have been configuring things in MX is with XML config
files, similar to Java or ASP.NET. I've blogged an example here:
http://clearsoftware.net/client/index.cfm?mo
I would use a cfif isdefined block to check if they've been set
and if not then do the include. There's no reason to keep resetting
them. There is no danger of a race condition unless 2 users
could be trying to set them to different values.
There's a big difference between this and using local
I have a CFMX site from a new customer of ours. They are using the
application scope in a way I've never seen before. They have a single
include file in the Application.cfm file that has a series of sets in it.
There are approxiamately 30 or 40 such sets. There is no control "cfif"
clause at
> > Is there any reason the variables need to be in the
> > application scope to begin with? Seems like it would be
> > simpler just to set them in the request scope from the
> > get-go...
>
> not really, was just looking at tweaking little bits of this
> application i am having to work on
oi Ubqtous!!
Thursday, January 29, 2004, 12:46:48 PM, you wrote:
U> Is there any reason the variables need to be in the application scope
U> to begin with? Seems like it would be simpler just to set them in the
U> request scope from the get-go...
not really, was just looking at tweaking little
Critter,
On 1/29/2004 at 12:32, you wrote:
C> but if i duplicate the application scope into the request
C> scope for each page hit... am i using more memory ?
Is there any reason the variables need to be in the application scope
to begin with? Seems like it would be simpler just to set th
equest scope why put them in
the Application scope at all? Just create them for each request where
you're doing the copying now, I would think.
Jim Davis
_
From: Critter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2004 12:33 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Request/applicatio
Cheers,
barneyb
> -Original Message-
> From: Critter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2004 9:33 AM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: Request/application scope question
>
> oi CF-Talk,!!
>
> i'm sure this has been asked many times in t
oi CF-Talk,!!
i'm sure this has been asked many times in the past... i just cannot remember the answer...
using CFMX.
lets say i have four variables that do not change at all.
i can place them in the application scope and it takes up the memory space for 4 variables, no?
but if i d
11 matches
Mail list logo
