Use a semaphore or lock file. When someone grabs addams.xml for editing,
write a really small file called addams.lck to the same directory. When done
processing, delete the addams.lck file. Change the process to look for the
existence of a filename.lck file and if one exists deny access to the
running on your db to re-unlock
the file after a set period of time etc... Obviously there's a little bit
more thought required to it than that, but you get the idea.
-Original Message-
From: Greg Bullough [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 16 October 2002 15:29
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re
excellent idea...indeed, superb. I see what I can knock up;
-Original Message-
From: Everett, Al [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 16 October 2002 15:41
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: 'Locking' a process
Use a semaphore or lock file. When someone grabs addams.xml for editing,
write a really
: Wednesday, October 16, 2002 3:34 PM
Subject: RE: 'Locking' a process
OK, probably didnt make myself clear enough, my mistake...(I am aware of
the
cflock)
I obviously want this to happen at the system level, but what I want is an
abstraction above that...i.e. I am editing a file names XXX.xml, I
Subject: Re: 'Locking' a process
How about doing CFLOCK and using a named lock?
Greg
At 03:15 PM 10/16/02 +0100, you wrote:
Anyone got any ideas on how to do a pseudo lock on a process
within an
application?
My example is that I am reading from an .xml file whose
contents can
hmm, I really like this. Better than my db idea in this instance
nice one.
-Original Message-
From: Everett, Al [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 16 October 2002 15:41
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: 'Locking' a process
Use a semaphore or lock file. When someone grabs addams.xml
Woo-hoo! I win!
-Original Message-
From: Robertson-Ravo, Neil (REC)
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2002 10:48 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: 'Locking' a process
cheers Rich, I did think of this, but the files has no
reference in the DB -
it doesnt need
I agree. The lock file idea is more applicable.
-Original Message-
From: Robertson-Ravo, Neil (REC)
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 16 October 2002 15:48
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: 'Locking' a process
cheers Rich, I did think of this, but the files has no
reference in the DB
. Access *.ldb files, for instance.
-Original Message-
From: Rich Wild [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2002 10:41 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: 'Locking' a process
hmm, I really like this. Better than my db idea in this instance
nice one
Anyone got any ideas on how to do a pseudo lock on a process within an
application?
My example is that I am reading from an .xml file whose contents can be
edited and then updated. I want to be able to lock this process so no
other
user can overwrite the data while another user is
Problem with a named lock is it's only available for the short time that a
single cfmodule is accessing that file -- I _think_ he's talking about
something more like a source-control check-in/check-out idea.
Wrap it with a named lock ?
HTH
-Original Message-
From: Robertson-Ravo,
yep, but I am not using a DB on this one, and how does it react if someone
doesnt go thru the actual process hence the timestamp check thingy?
-Original Message-
From: S. Isaac Dealey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 16 October 2002 16:31
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: 'Locking' a process
yep, I think we have established that :-p
LOL
-Original Message-
From: S. Isaac Dealey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 16 October 2002 16:33
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: 'Locking' a process
Problem with a named lock is it's only available for the short time that a
single cfmodule
-Original Message-
From: Everett, Al [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 16 October 2002 15:41
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: 'Locking' a process
Use a semaphore or lock file. When someone grabs addams.xml
for editing,
write a really small file called addams.lck to the same
directory
how does it react if someone
doesnt go thru the actual process hence the timestamp check
thingy?
The trouble with most application lock files, is that if you don't use the
application, you can override the lock anyway.
With access, you can just delete the .ldb file.
With dreamweaver's .lck
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: 'Locking' a process
Anyone got any ideas on how to do a pseudo lock on a process within an
application?
My example is that I am reading from an .xml file whose contents can be
edited and then updated. I want to be able to lock this process so no
other
user can
serves me right for responding before I finish reading the previous posts.
:)
yep, I think we have established that :-p
LOL
-Original Message-
From: S. Isaac Dealey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 16 October 2002 16:33
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: 'Locking' a process
Problem
I think there are ways to set readonly on a file using cffile or the
windows scripting host, but my impression is that in most cases these sorts
of operations aren't concerned with absolutely preventing people from
maliciously circumventing the system ( as is the case with anti-virus and
firewall
Why not try putting a throwontimeout=yes with a catch around it, that may
help.
- Original Message -
From: Marlon Moyer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, October 07, 2002 3:35 PM
Subject: Locking problem
I've got a bit of code that exports a crystal report
Thanks for the advice, Isaac. One other question, can you see any reason why
it would be bad to set all my application variables in application.cfm and
then use an if test to prevents further cfsets? What do you think of this
technique or are there better ones? My colleague and I are having
Again, I've had good experiences with this technique...
Here's an example:
cflock scope=application type=readonly timeout=30
cfparam name=url.getappudf type=boolean
default=#yesnoformat(isdeinfed('application.udf'))#
cfif url.getappudfcfset request.udf =
Hi,
I'm upgrading from CF 4.0.1 to CF 5 and I have read that
locking changed
from 4.0 to 4.5. I'm currently using application variables
and wanted some
thoughts on this:
Does anyone see any issues with moving all of my
application variables to
the request scope in application.cfm using:
Is it in my best interest to lock a cfobject call to a com
obj? I am to play things safe but if its not necessary...
This will depend on the COM object in question. Some will be thread-safe,
others won't.
Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
http://www.figleaf.com/
voice: (202) 797-5496
fax:
AFIK, if you mean lock it while you are processing a page, you can use the
cftransaction tag:
cftransaction isolation=serializable action=begin
cftransaction action=commit/
/cftransaction
Until the action=commit part, the records selected will be locked...
However, if you are looking to
Can any one tell me how to lock a record in the table
for some time.
When One record is opened for writing through a form, I
don't anyone else to open that particular record. I don't
know at which level this should be done either at Database
level or in ColdFusion.
The short answer is,
]
+---+
...'If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have
peace'...
- Thomas Paine, The American Crisis
-Original Message-
From: Dave Watts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 2:37 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Locking a record in database
You don't want to do this in the DB. DB locking is for tuning performance
and concurrency. What you are referring to is more like application logic.
I think I would flag the record in the table and check the flag before
opening it for editing - then reset the flag when done. However, you must
On Sat, 2002-04-27 at 04:54, Dave Watts wrote:
When should you use each? Right now, I do not use
named locks.
If you're using CF 4.5.x or higher, you should use the SCOPE attribute when
locking memory variables, and the NAME attribute for locking other things,
like CFX tags, if they
The problem with this is that you can't just lock part
of the APPLICATION scope for example, if you want to do
something to only some stuff stored in the app scope you
need to use named locks - but if you do that you're gonna
have to be careful that you don't use a name that some
other
- Original Message -
From: Dave Watts [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 8:04 AM
Subject: RE: Locking by name - is is application independant ?
The problem with this is that you can't just lock part
of the APPLICATION scope for example
Is the goal in locking a CFX tag to prevent two users from
accessing the tag simultaneously? So if two applications use
the same CFX tag the tag should have the same lock name?
Yes, if the CFX tag needs to be locked. Not all CFX tags do; some are
thread-safe, others aren't.
Dave Watts,
If i have two applications on the same CF server, indentified
by to different CFAPPLICATION tags, say one with an
application name Foo and the other Bar, and I execute a bit
of code in each that does a *named* cflock using the same
name, will that lock extend across applications ?
It's
When should you use each? Right now, I do not use named locks.
ANdy
-Original Message-
From: Dave Watts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, April 26, 2002 9:04 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Locking by name - is is application independant ?
If i have two applications on the same
When should you use each? Right now, I do not use
named locks.
If you're using CF 4.5.x or higher, you should use the SCOPE attribute when
locking memory variables, and the NAME attribute for locking other things,
like CFX tags, if they need to be locked.
If you're using CF 4.0.x, you don't
If you're using CF 4.5.x or higher, you should use the SCOPE
attribute when locking memory variables, and the NAME attribute
for locking other things, like CFX tags, if they need to be locked.
Is the goal in locking a CFX tag to prevent two users from accessing the
tag simultaneously? So if
, inc.
410.931.4092
http://www.atnetsolutions.com
-Original Message-
From: Dave Watts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 12:58 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: locking (was: UDF question)
The question is - do you want CF to automatically handle
everything for you
despite the fact that you're not raymond, i'll respond
to him via your response for him (how's it feel to be a
surrogate ray? :))
I refuse to answer that question because, well, it's kind of weird.
I don't think that's what Ray meant. If I understand
correctly, his distinction was that
Message-
From: Dave Watts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 11:26 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: locking (was: UDF question)
despite the fact that you're not raymond, i'll respond
to him via your response for him (how's it feel to be a
surrogate ray? :))
I refuse
The server, admittedly, does not host any
extremely-high activity sites.
There's the kicker. Locking variables is something you can
*usually* get away with on low traffic sites. But put any
load on these sites and you start getting odd errors that are
seemingly sporadic (if you're
- Original Message -
From: Dave Watts [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 11:05 AM
Subject: RE: locking (was: UDF question)
I know that this is only a typo, but you meant Not locking variables ...,
right?
Yep. Missed my morning coffee
The question is - do you want CF to automatically handle
everything for you at the sacrifice of speed?
Raymond,
I'm not Raymond, but I'll attempt a response anyway.
My first question to you is is there ever a reason not to
lock access to Session or Application scoped variables?
is the session variable you are adding to the application scope a
struct
variable?
-Original Message-
From: Kay Smoljak [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2002 20:55
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Locking multiple scopes
I have a tricky situation - I have a session
Nope, a simple string (it's a value from a session struct, though).
Brendan Avery [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:CABC9F219F6778408A5AE606F4CE49E304C24C@EXCHANGE...
is the session variable you are adding to the application scope a
struct
variable?
-Original Message-
should really only be open for microtaneous
instances.
jest mah too sense.
brendan avery 2.0 - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
310.779.2211 - santa monica, california
-Original Message-
From: Kay Smoljak [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2002 21:16
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re
Read the KB article
http://www.allaire.com/Handlers/index.cfm?ID=20370Method=Full
As for your code:
cflock timeout=30 throwontimeout=Yes type=EXCLUSIVE
scope=SESSION
cfif NOT IsDefined(session.basket)
cfset session.basket = ArrayNew(2)
/cfif
cfset FoundInBasket = 0
!--- Case 1 - Item already
Tage Widsell wrote:
Just a little detail:
I know that I must lock every read from a shared scope variable, but what
about checking for it's existence? Is that ok without locking? For example:
cfif IsDefined(Server.webroot)
...do this and that...
/cfif
You need to lock those too.
On 12/12/01, Tage Widsell penned:
I know that I must lock every read from a shared scope variable, but what
about checking for it's existence? Is that ok without locking? For example:
cfif IsDefined(Server.webroot)
...do this and that...
/cfif
isDefined is a Read. You'll only be able to
: Seamus Campbell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2001 9:36 PM
Subject: still confused re locking
I'm still confused over locking!
I have this sort of query
cfquery name=get_expired datasource=#request.DSN#
SELECT User_ID, nickname, expiry_date
FROM
Put them into temporary page-level variables and lock them when transferring
the values, so that you don't have to lock the query -- that is bad
practice. Something like this:
cflock scope = Session timeout = 20 type = readonly
cfset variables.temp = SESSION.user_ID
/cflock
cfquery
many thanks to all who answered - lessened my confusion beautifully.
One final quick question
in the code below I actually have 2 hidden fields
should there be any problems locking the 2 variables in the
one lock as below or should I use 2 separate locks??
One lock is all you need for
At 10:30 PM 11/2/2001, you wrote:
If serviceAvailable() requires the use of the external variable
application.services I would say that it is a Bad Thing (TM) if you can
invoke it like serviceAvailable('borkyService'). The UDF should be
modified so it has to be invoked by sending all external
I still disagree, why should my greater application have or want to know
anything about how serviceAvailable() and related UDFs do the job they say
they will ?
Because that's the way it is. You have two choices -- adapt your thinking
and implement it the way that it works currently, or
At 12:28 PM 11/5/2001, you wrote:
I still disagree, why should my greater application have or want to know
anything about how serviceAvailable() and related UDFs do the job they say
they will ?
When I first started CF I couldn't believe that I didn't have a way to call
a function of my own
At 02:37 AM 11/2/2001, Birgit wrote:
Pete,
you are right concerning cfscript but I can't see the limitations
regarding UDFs.
A UDF pre se is meant to be self-contained and therefore not relying on
anything outside it's
own scope. Wouldn't the use of shared data inside a UDF be
Pete,
you are right concerning cfscript but I can't see the limitations
regarding UDFs.
A UDF pre se is meant to be self-contained and therefore not relying on anything
outside it's
own scope. Wouldn't the use of shared data inside a UDF be defeating this
purpose?
You could read a shared scope
I don't think so... take for example the following
if locking could be done in CFSCRIPT/
CFIF serviceAvailable('borkyService')
do stuff, we don't care about how serviceAvailable() does it's
job, just that we ask for a service and it
tells us if it is available
Nope. It's a big limitation for CFSCRIPT and UDF's
+
Pete Freitag ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
CFDEV.COM
ColdFusion Developer Resources
http://www.cfdev.com/
-Original Message-
From: James Sleeman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, November
Correction... they should all be READONLY locks
-Original Message-
Which code is better and why?
A: Locking the whole loop...
cflock type=READONLY scope=SESSION timeout=10
cfloop collection=#evaluate(session.#attrubites.StructName#)#
item=locField
cfset
Which code is better and why?
A: Locking the whole loop...
Since the loop uses a Session variable in its COLLECTION attribute, you need
to lock the loop, and not just its contents. There's nothing wrong with
copying the structure by value into a local scope, all other things being
equal, as
I prefer C, less times locking, less processes inside the locking
-Original Message-
From: Justin Hansen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2001 10:09 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: locking a loop or the contents
Correction... they should all be READONLY locks
As a reminder, and a bit off topic, and if one of the earlier repliers said
this, please forgive...
Do not forget that the Session scope is a structure. There is NO need to do
Evaluate(Session.#dynamic#). Simply do:
COLLECTION=#Session[Dynamic]# where Dynamic == a valid key in the struct.
Hi,
The second idea (B) is not a good idea because you are still accessing the
SESSION scope in the CFLOOP, so you need to CFLOCK it. Both A C would
work fine, except in C, you need to use StructCopy, not Duplicate. And in
all three, you spelled attributes as attrubites, but other than that,
Do ya need to lock the session scope if you're just checking if a
session var exists?
Yes.
Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
http://www.figleaf.com/
phone: (202) 797-5496
fax: (202) 797-5444
~~
Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get
-- Original Message --
from: Ryan Emerle [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Do ya need to lock the session scope if you're just checking if a session
var exists? Im well versed in why/how to lock for read and write, so no
explanations will be needed in that area :)
Yes,
if you're just checking if a session var exists?
Yes you do!
I was just working on that... here is what I do:
cflock type=READONLY scope=SESSION timeout=10
cfset locStructDefined = isDefined(session.classic)
/cflock
cfif not locStructDefined
cflock type=EXCLUSIVE
yes, lock it. It is the same as a read.
-Original Message-
From: Ryan Emerle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2001 9:57 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Locking session scope on existence checks
Do ya need to lock the session scope if you're just checking if a session
var
Yes. It's considered a read of the variable and would required a
readonly lock.
-Tyson
-Original Message-
From: Ryan Emerle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2001 9:57 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Locking session scope on existence checks
Do ya need to lock the session
Steven, why did you take out the CFLOCKS in the application.cfm file?
Kind Regards - Mike Brunt, EmbeeMedia
Tel: 562.790.8631
http://www.embeemedia.com
Instant Messaging Handles: -
AIM (AOL): MediaEmbee
MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Yahoo: MediaEmbeeYH
-Original Message-
From: Steven Dworman
It means that whatever value you had for the timeout attribute in your
cflock tag was too short. You received the error message because you had
throwontimeout=yes.
Instead of removing the locks, either increase the timeout value or
consider moving from a scope lock to a name lock so you can
You can lock them all as a group.
Cheers,
Jeff Garza
Webmaster,
Spectrum Astro, Inc.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: Alii Design
To: CF-Talk
Sent: 6/2/01 8:18 AM
Subject: locking question
Do you need to lock each session variable individually or can you lock
them
all as a
The scope attribute was added in ColdFusion 4.5. In ColdFusion 4, you can
approximate this behavior by using the name attribute. For Session
variables, use the name #Session.SessionID#. For Application variables, use
the name #Application.ApplicationName#.
Benjamin S. Rogers
Web Developer,
Yes, lock every read and write
-Original Message-
From: Michael Lugassy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, May 07, 2001 11:01 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Locking??
I'm new to this LOCKING thing with CF.
Do I need to LOCK EVERY single READ from application/session/cfxs?
Even if I just
I'm new to this LOCKING thing with CF.
Do I need to LOCK EVERY single READ from application/session/cfxs?
Even if I just read from them??
In a word, yes. However, I think you will only need to lock access to CFX
tags if they are non-thread safe or if they access shared scope data such
as
-- Original Message --
From: Dave Watts [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If you enable Automatic Read Locking in CF 4.5.x, it'll insist that any
write to a memory variable be locked using a scoped lock. Your only
solution, for compatibility across 4.0.x and 4.5.x, is to
Hmmm ... we're transitioning from CF 4.0 to 4.5 and have all
our locks scoped with the old name=session.sessionid
name=application.applicationname method. They work okay
under 4.5, and pass with Automatic Read Locking turned on.
They do not work with Full Checking turned on, which
I really did search for this, but didn't find an answer. I'm
moving from CF 4 to 4.5, and have turned on Automatic Read
Locking in all scopes. Now I'm going through to see what's
broken as a result. Note that I'm trying to maintain
compatibility with 4.0 as much as possible.
Is there
this would be better
CFLOCK SCOPE="SESSION" TYPE="READONLY" TIMEOUT="10"
cfset locValue = session.value
/CFLOCK
CFIF locValue EQ 0
CFINCLUDE TEMPLATE="somecfml.cfm"
/CFIF
-Original Message-
From: Terry Bader [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2001
I think you want to handle it more like this:
CFSET includeItP = false
CFLOCK SCOPE="SESSION" TYPE="READONLY" TIMEOUT="10"
CFIF session.value EQ 0
CFSET includeItP = true
/CFIF
/CFLOCK
CFIF includeItP
CFINCLUDE TEMPLATE="somecfml.cfm"
/CFIF
PROTECTED]
icq: 5202487 aim: lv2bounce
http://www.cs.odu.edu/~bader
-Original Message-
From: Hayes, David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2001 2:54 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: LOCKING
I think you want to handle it more like
]
icq: 5202487 aim: lv2bounce
http://www.cs.odu.edu/~bader
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2001 2:52 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: LOCKING
this would be better
CFLOCK SCOPE="SESSION" TYPE
-Original Message-
From: Terry Bader [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2001 2:32 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: LOCKING
ok, question about locking
let's say I have code like this:
CFLOCK SCOPE="SESSION" TYPE="READONLY" TIMEOUT="10"
CFIF
The way I usually do it, is to quickly CFLOCK (as readonly) the session variables and
copy them into local variables.
Then use the local variables later on the page (in IF statements and what not).
That way as little as code as possible is inside the CFLOCK tag block.
hth,
Brian Simmons
://www.cs.odu.edu/~bader
-Original Message-
From: Andrew Tyrone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2001 3:11 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: LOCKING
-Original Message-
From: Terry Bader [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2001 2:32 PM
To: CF
Jon Hall wrote:
I have seen all of the warnings to make sure to use cflock around any of
the in memory variable types in a CF application. I hear that every access
of a session, or application variable should have cflock around it, or I
could enable automatic locking on the server which
In short
1) You need to have locks around even the Cfif Isdefined() statements. In
order for CF to check if a function is defined it has to attempt a read of
said function.
2) When accessing a shared variable to read its value the cflock type=""
attribute should be Readonly.
3) When
...
C. Setup
Run date: 21 Dec 00. CF Server is 4.5.1 on NT server 4.0 SP5.
Two servers involved - local machine and production server on
LAN (light traffic).
Single page submitted to server with 1000 iteration loop on
database query. CF page has three session variables and
rn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, December 22, 2000 2:14 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: LOCKING revisited...Test Results
Gentlemen,
I have completed a series of tests on locking in CF and share
with you my
findings. You may find the results surprising and I make several
c
Actually the reverse is true. You should as a developer place your READ
locks. The way that the code optimizer in CF works it basically puts the
lock around the assignments then processes. You will gain much better
performance by manually placing these then allowing CF to do it
for you. The
Now I *KNOW* that is not true!
I've crashed my server enough to know Cold Fusion doesn't put it's own locks in.
At 11:50 AM 12/21/00 +, Philip Arnold - ASP wrote:
Actually the reverse is true. You should as a developer place your READ
locks. The way that the code optimizer in CF works it
The only time it will act "single threaded" is when two
requests attempt to read an Application scope variable at the
same time.
Actually, read locks don't cause access to be single-threaded. All a read
lock does is prevent a write to the scope while the read is going on.
On a related
Duplicate() is an undocumented feature only present in CF4.5
upwards.
It's not quite undocumented. It's described in the release notes, which are
very important reading. A lot of stuff is described better in the release
notes than in the general documentation.
Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf
Ok, given that we all agree:
** Access to shared variables should *ALWAYS* be locked **
Then why on Earth shouldn't I just turn on Automatic Read
Locking for Application (and Session et al if I use them)
scope and only worry about write locking in my code?
Why doesn't everyone do
CTED]
Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2000 10:11 AM
Subject: RE: LOCKING revisited...
Ok, given that we all agree:
** Access to shared variables should *ALWAYS* be locked **
Then why on Earth shouldn't I just turn on Automatic Read
Locking for Application (and Session et al if I use th
And those of us still on 4.0x don't (I think) have that option.
-Original Message-
From: Peter Theobald [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2000 3:16 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: LOCKING revisited...
Ok, given that we all agree:
** Access to shared variables should
On 12/20/00, [EMAIL PROTECTED] penned:
And those of us still on 4.0x don't (I think) have that option.
-Original Message-
From: Peter Theobald [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2000 3:16 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: LOCKING revisited...
Ok, given that we all agree:
**
No offense, but that is nonsense.
My Cold Fusion server is still multi-threaded and multi-processed. It is still
handling every incoming request at the same time.
The only time it will act "single threaded" is when two requests attempt to read an
Application scope variable at the same time. And
y more. Is this not the case?!?
Thanks,
Evan
-Original Message-
From: Peter Theobald [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2000 10:21 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: LOCKING revisited...
No offense, but that is nonsense.
My Cold Fusion server is still multi-threaded an
. ---
Ben.
-Original Message-
From: Evan Lavidor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 20 December 2000 15:52
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: LOCKING revisited...
Are you saying that if I do the following:
cflock scope="application" timeout="30" type="readonly"
locking any more. Is this not the case?!?
Thanks,
Evan
-Original Message-
From: Peter Theobald [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2000 10:21 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: LOCKING revisited...
No offense, but that is nonsense.
My Cold Fusion server is still multi-th
OK gentlemen, I've done some research and modifiy my earlier post as
follows:
You can expect that a user's browser is hitting you with 4 simultaneous
threads, AOL uses 2, and the CFSserver is handling these concurrently
because it is mult-threaded. It is very possible that requests to shared
201 - 300 of 348 matches
Mail list logo
