outNum = finalResult & '%'
& is the concatenation operator in CF (yeah, i know...it can be annoying) :)
charlie
- Original Message -
From: "Owens, Howard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, January 17, 2003 5:29 PM
Subject: UDF question -- make num a stri
try :
outNum=finalResult & '%';
Marius Milosav
www.scorpiosoft.com
It's not about technology, it's about people.
Virtual Company (VICO) Application Demo
www.scorpiosoft.com/vicodemo/login.cfm
- Original Message -
From: "Owens, Howard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
When you use the +, tried to add it, replace the + with & and you will
be ok:
outNum=finalResult & '%';
Used to get me all the time, still once in a while, lol
Robert Bailey
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Famous for nothing!"
http://www.tinetics.com
-Original Message-
From: Owens, Howard [m
outNum = finalResult & '%';
Robert Bailey
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Famous for nothing!"
http://www.tinetics.com
-Original Message-
From: Owens, Howard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, January 17, 2003 4:29 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: UDF question -- make num a string
I'm trying to d
ROTFL!
At 03:34 PM 3/19/2002 -0800, you wrote:
>Jeff,
>
>I have been meaning to talk to you about this. Yunno, the holidays (take
>your pick) are upon us and business has been a bit slow on the Sabbath
>(again, take your pick). Heaven is starting to look a little frayed around
>the edges. Th
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 5:12 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: UDF question
> > Dave - 250$ an hour? send them to us, we'll work for
> > half that .
>
> Maybe it's $250 an hour because they can do so same work (or
> better) in less than half t
Jeff,
I have been meaning to talk to you about this. Yunno, the holidays (take
your pick) are upon us and business has been a bit slow on the Sabbath
(again, take your pick). Heaven is starting to look a little frayed around
the edges. Think you might be able to throw a little something on
> > Dave - 250$ an hour? send them to us, we'll work for
> > half that .
>
> Maybe it's $250 an hour because they can do so same work (or
> better) in less than half the time? Just a thought.
Close, perhaps, but more like "because we fix the work after your original
consultant screwed up, and
Maybe it's $250 an hour because they can do so same work (or better) in less
than half the time? Just a thought.
-Original Message-
From: Mark A. Kruger - CFG [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 2:16 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: UDF question
Dave - 250$ an
Dave - 250$ an hour? send them to us, we'll work for half that .
-mk
P.S. - you guys lawyers or something?
-Original Message-
From: Dave Watts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 12:17 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: UDF question
> You're talking abo
D]>
>To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 2:23 PM
>Subject: RE: UDF question
>
>
> > > A consultant asking $250/hour and claiming a need to do
> > > a full server-under-load analysis would be viewed as an
-under-load analysis would be viewed as
>an overpriced blowhard."
>
>- Original Message -
>From: "Keith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 2:07 PM
>Subject: Re: UDF question
>
> > A consultant asking $250/hour and claiming a need to do
> > a full server-under-load analysis would be viewed as an
> > overpriced blowhard.
>
> I am actually considering a career as an overpriced blowhard at those
> rates...
I've got the blowhard thing down. How exactly does one become ove
I would be in awe of people who charge such rates if it weren't for that fact
that I've worked with a few.
- Original Message -
From: "Tim Claremont" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 2:23 PM
Su
And around we go again... (smile)
- Original Message -
From: "Ken Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 2:24 PM
Subject: RE: UDF question
> > Please understand that I don't work on pro
lutions to my
customers is that I take advantage of resources like this list and the
wonderful contributions of people like Dave Watts.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original Message -
From: "Dave Watts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tue
> Please understand that I don't work on projects that cost 100's of
thousands
> of dollars. My customers and I have modest goals. I want to efficiently
> produce clean, maintainable applications that meet specific needs.
Sounds like the perfect reason to use CFLOCK from the outset. :)
Ken
> A consultant asking $250/hour and claiming a need to do
> a full server-under-load analysis would be viewed as an
> overpriced blowhard.
I am actually considering a career as an overpriced blowhard at those
rates...
__
Your a
Well at least I was able to find openSTA through this entertaining
conversation!
Neil
-Original Message-
From: Dave Watts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 3:23 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: UDF question
> I realize you weren't insulting me and I apolog
> I realize you weren't insulting me and I apologize.
No need for that. We're all rational adults here.
> Please understand that I don't work on projects that cost
> 100's of thousands of dollars. My customers and I have
> modest goals. I want to efficiently produce clean,
> maintainable appl
t; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 2:07 PM
Subject: Re: UDF question
> I realize you weren't insulting me and I apologize.
>
> Please understand that I don't work on projects that cost 100's of thousands
> of dollars. My customers and I have modest goa
ant asking $250/hour and claiming a need to do a full server-under-load
analysis would be viewed as an overpriced blowhard.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original Message -
From: "Dave Watts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, M
> I've never seen you issue such an insulting reply. You
> yourself have stated that you have no "real" information
> to back up your claims.
>
> Sorry that I disagree with you, but I don't care to have
> my professionalism questioned.
I'm sorry that you read my response as a personal insult.
--- Original Message -
From: "Dave Watts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 12:17 PM
Subject: RE: UDF question
> > You're talking about developers who don't use CFLOCK
> > because they are i
> You're talking about developers who don't use CFLOCK
> because they are ignorant of CF locking issues. I'm
> sure we all agree that this is a bad thing, but it's
> not exactly relevent to the original discussion.
>
> You can write perfectly "solid" applications that do
> not lock session va
iginal Message -
From: "Sharon Diorio" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 9:45 AM
Subject: Re: UDF question
> > The server, admittedly, does not host any
> > extremely-high activity sites.
>
>
- Original Message -
From: "Jim Curran" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Just a thought off the top of my head,
> 1) copy the session structure to a temporary local structure in
> Application.cfm:
>
>
>
>
Actually, this is one of the more common workarounds for locking issues. Although I
usua
> > The only concurrency issues that seem to come up in CF are
> > when we needto single thread any piece of code - that's what
> > the locks do. But I haven't seen any code at all that allows
> > us to start new threads in the same page.
>
> Everytime a new user goes onto your web site, a new
> 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 not fam
Thanks Ray & Jochem
- j
-Original Message-
From: Raymond Camden [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 10:18 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: UDF question
Just a reminder - whenever you copy _any_ structure, if you are not 100%
sure the data is flat (no deep str
> Just a thought off the top of my head,
>
> Premise: Local Vars do not need to be cflocked
>
> Why not
>
> 1) copy the session structure to a temporary local
> structure in Application.cfm:
>
>
>
>
>
> 2) Reference the temp structure in all templates:
>
>
> > 3) Set the session struct equal to the temp struct in
> OnRequestEnd.cfm
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> Use Duplicate() instead of StructCopy() because StructCopy() doesn't
> copy as many levels as it should.
>
No - it _does_ go as deep as possible, but it creates pointers on
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Yahoo IM : morpheus
"My ally is the Force, and a powerful ally it is." - Yoda
> -Original Message-
> From: Matthew R. Small [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 10:21 AM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: RE: UDF question
>
Jim Curran wrote:
>
> 1) copy the session structure to a temporary local structure in
> Application.cfm:
>
>
>
>
>
> 2) Reference the temp structure in all templates:
>
> ...
>
> 3) Set the session struct equal to the temp struct in OnRequestEnd.cfm
>
>
OTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 10:11 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: UDF question
Hey all,
Just a thought off the top of my head,
Premise: Local Vars do not need to be cflocked
Why not
1) copy the session structure to a temporary local structure in
Application.cfm:
Hey all,
Just a thought off the top of my head,
Premise: Local Vars do not need to be cflocked
Why not
1) copy the session structure to a temporary local structure in
Application.cfm:
2) Reference the temp structure in all templates:
...
3) Set t
[deletia]
> My second question is isn't it true that, assuming all other things
> being equal, any algorithm or function coded in binary, compiled
> language is going to perform better than one written in a markup
> language and executed in JIT or even an interpreted language
> executed in
> a vi
> I don't think it's a multi-threaded language because it is
> not possible (to my knowledge) to start a new thread and
> have it run while the main thread continues execution, then
> notify the main thread when it's done executing. The fact
> that we need to be concerned about multi-threading
perly implemented system, using CFLOCK for variable
access would be totally unnecessary and provide no benefit.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original Message -
From: "Benjamin S. Rogers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2
Well said.
- Matt Small
-Original Message-
From: Benjamin S. Rogers [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 5:32 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: UDF question
> The question is - do you want CF to automatically handle everything
> for you at the sacrifice of
> The question is - do you want CF to automatically handle everything
> for you at the sacrifice of speed?
Raymond,
My first question to you is is there ever a reason not to lock access to
Session or Application scoped variables? Personally I can't think of
one, much less one in which the "sacr
But that's not CFML, that's HTML. And you can't thread a separate
process to run concurrently inside the page.
-Original Message-
From: Shawn Grover [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 5:12 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: RE: UDF question
You can
ECTED]]
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 3:01 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: RE: UDF question
I don't think it's a multi-threaded language because it is not possible
(to my knowledge) to start a new thread and have it run while the main
thread continues execution, then notify the main thread
f both. Fractal threaded maybe? :-)
My humble opinion.
Matt Small
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 4:38 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: RE: UDF question
See below:
- Original Message -
From: "Matthew R. S
IL PROTECTED]
- Original Message -
From: "Sharon Diorio" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 3:13 PM
Subject: Re: UDF question
> I'm with Raymond. It was a royal PITA to get used to locking all variabl
Which is born out by:
Assembly is faster than everything.
- Original Message -
From: "Matthew R. Small" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Monday, March 18, 2002 2:39 pm
Subject: RE: RE: UDF question
> You're right... it seems that the real question is whether or not the
&
See below:
- Original Message -
From: "Matthew R. Small" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Monday, March 18, 2002 2:33 pm
Subject: RE: UDF question
> The only concurrency issues that seem to come up in CF are when we
> needto single thread any piece of code - that's
lto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 4:19 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: RE: UDF question
It comes down to a game:
Can the server decide the best way to lock in less time than the "best
manually coded" lock?
Which then boils down to:
Can the CF interpreter decide the best way
h 18, 2002 4:10 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: UDF question
CF is merely an abstraction of a crap load of C++ code.
I agree with you on the process that happens when you define a variable
in CF. I don't see how that absolves the programmer of coming up with
the best way of handling concurrency
rence between a developer and a coder"
thread? ;-)
Sharon
- Original Message -
From: "Raymond Camden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 3:25 PM
Subject: RE: UDF question
> (Taking off Macromedia ca
> Actually, it was a question for you because if there locks should be
> used in every situation then why even make it an option for the
I already answered this though - the idea is that the programmer is
better and deciding how the locks should be implemented.
> programmer? And I do disagree
oes the job really really quickly
on today's computers?
- Original Message -
From: Raymond Camden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Monday, March 18, 2002 1:40 pm
Subject: RE: UDF question
> > But shouldn't this whole issue be written into the server code?
> > Wouldn't
CTED]
- Original Message -
From: "Raymond Camden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 2:25 PM
Subject: RE: UDF question
> (Taking off Macromedia cap and speaking as just one of yall...)
> The question is - d
PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: UDF question
> But shouldn't this whole issue be written into the server code?
> Wouldn't it would run much faster that way than both the
> individual sets
> of cflocks that you've portrayed and the reality which is
> sets of locks
> a
many mechanisms of locking
control. What really matters is picking the one that suits you, and to
write code that is in line with the decision you've made.
- Original Message -
From: junkMail <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Monday, March 18, 2002 1:18 pm
Subject: Re: UDF question
> W
Matthew R. Small wrote:
> Wouldn't it would run much faster that way than both the individual sets
> of cflocks that you've portrayed and the reality which is sets of locks
> around blocks of session accesses? As far as readonly or exclusive goes,
> then shouldn't the complier be able to distingu
pliance Engineer for Macromedia
>
> Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Yahoo IM : morpheus
>
> "My ally is the Force, and a powerful ally it is." - Yoda
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Jon Hall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Monday, M
: morpheus
"My ally is the Force, and a powerful ally it is." - Yoda
> -Original Message-
> From: Jon Hall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 3:47 PM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: Re: UDF question - locking...the future...maybe...
>
>
>
> 1) with today's computer's, the speed issue shouldn't be an
> issue at all.
> Unless you are doing something inside a loop over thousands
> of iterations,
> on multiple websites (hosted on the same server) at the same time, the
> performance hit should be very minor. If you are looping
> thr
-
From: "Howie Hamlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 3:28 PM
Subject: Re: UDF question
> This article is about memory leaks caused by bad coding. We were talking
about CFLOCKs and why the server should be d
At 03:39 PM 3/18/2002 -0500, you wrote:
>And as long as we're here, show me a single time when you don't want to
>use locks around a session scope.
The client hasn't paid their bill in 6+ months, you terminated your
contract with them 2 months ago, and the client ( who still calls you every
ents (99% of my use of session variables).
My 2 cents worth
Shawn Grover
-Original Message-
From: Raymond Camden [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 1:26 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: UDF question
(Taking off Macromedia cap and speaking as just one of yall...)
The q
> But shouldn't this whole issue be written into the server code?
> Wouldn't it would run much faster that way than both the
> individual sets
> of cflocks that you've portrayed and the reality which is
> sets of locks
> around blocks of session accesses? As far as readonly or
> exclusive goes,
02 3:26 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: UDF question
(Taking off Macromedia cap and speaking as just one of yall...)
The question is - do you want CF to automatically handle everything for
you at the sacrifice of speed? Here is a good example:
If CF had to auto l
ail up to the
developer.
-mk
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 1:58 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: UDF question
Interesting.
Any language that implements locking (read: any that are worth
programming in) uses some so
; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 3:21 PM
Subject: Re: UDF question
> http://www.javaworld.com/javaworld/javaqa/1999-08/04-qa-leaks.html
>
>
__
This list and all House of Fusion resourc
Howie Hamlin wrote:
> Why CF doesn't protect threaded access to shared memory automatically, I'll never
>know. It just doesn't make any sense. What if
> you're a hosting provider?
Switch on full checking in the Administrator. We do it and explain this
a little bit and everybody is happy. Or
PROTECTED]
Yahoo IM : morpheus
"My ally is the Force, and a powerful ally it is." - Yoda
> -Original Message-
> From: junkMail [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 3:18 PM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: Re: UDF question
>
>
> With respect to thi
http://www.javaworld.com/javaworld/javaqa/1999-08/04-qa-leaks.html
- Original Message -
From: "Douglas Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 2:44 PM
Subject: Re: UDF question
> Maybe someone from
ot a multi-threaded language. It's a language capable of producing
multi-threaded applications, such as ColdFusion.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 1:58 PM
Subject: Re:
Hmmm... can we write multithreaded applications in ColdFusion? If so,
please explain how.
- Matt Small
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 2:58 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: UDF question
Interesting.
Any language that
- Original Message -
From: junkMail <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Monday, March 18, 2002 12:50 pm
Subject: Re: UDF question
> Gosh, I disagree completely with this.
>
> For me, having my code littered with irrelevant CFLOCKs is sloppy.
>
> I'm comfortable with req
able Single Threaded Sessions on your server, then you'll need
to do all the sloppy locking. (smile)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original Message -
From: "Raymond Camden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 7:2
on. If the locking issues are still present in
> Neo, it's going to seriously shake my faith in the quality of Macromedia
> software engineering.
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Howie Hamlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> T
th in the quality of Macromedia
software engineering.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original Message -
From: "Howie Hamlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 8:21 AM
Subject: Re: UDF question
> Why CF doesn't
> > > Or enable "Single Threaded Sessions" in the CF Administrator.
> >
> > And pay a steep price in performance...
>
> Pay a price, yes, especially if you are using frames. But
> I'd not call it a steep price.
>
> Has anyone ran stats on this one?
I have, for specific problem applications. Whi
> Sorry to be a pest but, as I stated earlier on this list,
> I have a feeling that most of the fear of Single Threaded
> Sessions is based on CF urban legend. I'd welcome some
> real information.
Unfortunately, there's very little "real information" pertaining to server
performance tuning. It
gt;
> > -Original Message-
> > From: junkMail [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2002 4:30 PM
> > To: CF-Talk
> > Subject: Re: UDF question
> >
> >
> > Or enable "Single Threaded Sessions" in the CF Administrator.
Camden, Principal Spectra Compliance Engineer for Macromedia
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Yahoo IM : morpheus
"My ally is the Force, and a powerful ally it is." - Yoda
> -Original Message-
> From: junkMail [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2002 4:30
junkMail wrote:
> I don't get the first part of your reply. Are you saying that the Single
> Threaded Sessions setting on the server is a bad idea because of your browsing
> habits?
No. It is a bad idea in general, but for me it is agravated because of
my browsing habits. If I open some 6 brow
ECTED]
- Original Message -
From: "Jochem van Dieten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 3:00 AM
Subject: Re: UDF question
> Ben Forta wrote:
> > Pay a price, yes, especially if you are using frames. But
Ben Forta wrote:
> Pay a price, yes, especially if you are using frames. But I'd not call
> it a steep price.
I would. Partially because I rarely browse with less than a dozen
browser tabs opened. But also because it causes serious issues with long
running queries/cfhttp calls etc. If I use one
riginal Message-
From: Chuck McElwee [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2002 4:05 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: UDF question - extended
Along with the locking issues, I've found some interesting anomalies. I use
'Full Checking' (development server only) and find that
riables.session["sessionid"]# does. Isn't the
second simply an alternate syntax?
What's up with that?
Chuck McElwee
etech solutions inc
www.etechsolutions.com
-Original Message-
From: junkMail [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2002 4:55 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject
t these options.
Keith Meade
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original Message -
From: "Ben Forta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2002 3:41 PM
Subject: RE: UDF question
> Pay a price, yes, especially if you are using fr
Pay a price, yes, especially if you are using frames. But I'd not call
it a steep price.
Has anyone ran stats on this one?
-Original Message-
From: Chuck McElwee [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2002 4:43 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: UDF question
And pay a
And pay a steep price in performance...
Chuck McElwee
etech solutions inc
www.etechsolutions.com
-Original Message-
From: junkMail [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2002 4:30 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: UDF question
Or enable "Single Threaded Sessions"
Or enable "Single Threaded Sessions" in the CF Administrator.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original Message -
From: "Raymond Camden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2002 3:14 PM
Subject: RE: UDF question
"My ally is the Force, and a powerful ally it is." - Yoda
> -Original Message-
> From: Howie Hamlin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2002 4:35 PM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: Re: UDF question
>
>
> Thanks for the reply. I wound
}
Regards,
Howie
- Original Message -
From: "junkMail" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2002 4:29 PM
Subject: Re: UDF question
> Try something like this...
>
> function BasketItemCo
Try something like this...
function BasketItemCount()
{
var totitems=0;
for (i = 1; i lte session.basket.recordcount; i = i + 1) {
totItems = totItems + session.basket.itemQty[i];
}
return totitems;
}
Keith Meade
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original Message -
From: "Howie Hamlin" <
91 matches
Mail list logo
