Here, for your entertainment, are more anti-fusebox ramblings:
> it's not really a question of it's good or bad, it's a
> question of what is it missing? I've seen a ton of Fusebox
> code with everything you've mentioned below.
I'd argue that it's not a question of good or bad, but rather what
> > Did I understand Jeremy Allen correctly that the CF server
> > will compile the entire page to P-Code *with any included
> > files* and cache it. How does it track the myriad of
> > combinations when all of the s are dynamic
> > (inside CFIFs) and different files are included depending
> >
>
>
>
>
> OK. Well, that sure buys me a lot, doesn't it? Admittedly, you might reuse
> some of the methods and properties, but then again you might not. The point
> of using COM, in my opinion, is that it IS an encapsulation - I simply
> instantiate the object, then use it. I don't need to enc
> >apps?
> >
> >Nat Papovich
> >ICQ 32676414
> >"I'm for truth no matter who tells it."
> >-Malcolm X, 1965
> >
> >
> >-Original Message-
> >From: Dave Watts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> >Sent: Friday, October
Not these days, everything on the computers usually are cached. So it would
be no surprise to know that files have always been cached from Windows
95/98/ME/2000. So in reality because these files are heavily used the files
would be cached and would be accessed quicker the second/third time.
But i
lk
Subject: Ben Forta I call on thee... was(RE: fusebox style: too much
disk access?)
Mr. Forta,
In other words, does the caching sytem that CF uses perform a cache per
fusebox or a cache for each fuseaction?
Thank you, and greatly in your debt.
Don Sparks
--Original Message--
From
---Original Message-
>From: Peter Theobald [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>Sent: Friday, October 20, 2000 3:33 PM
>To: CF-Talk
>Subject: RE: fusebox style: too much disk access?
>
>
>Since we're talking about it... I always thought that breaking up an
>application by "
eers.com
ICQ: 346566
--
> -Original Message-
> From: Jones, Matt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, October 20, 2000 3:42 PM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: RE: fusebox style: too much disk access?
>
>
> If the code is logical, organized, and well written,
Back to the original topic of disk access...
During a recent build to a production server, a friend of mine
"accidentally" deleted the webroot on the live server. Because of the
techincal logistics, getting a new copy on the server takes quite some time.
In the meantime, the site kept plugging al
Q 32676414
"I'm for truth no matter who tells it."
-Malcolm X, 1965
-Original Message-
From: Jones, Matt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, October 20, 2000 3:42 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: fusebox style: too much disk access?
If the code is logical, organized,
I've got a fusebox tattoo, so nah!
:^)
Kidding,
Brad
-Original Message-
From: Jones, Matt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, October 20, 2000 6:42 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: fusebox style: too much disk access?
If the code is logical, organized, and well written, it shou
well stated
>From: "Jones, Matt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: CF-Talk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: RE: fusebox style: too much disk access?
>Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 17:41:59 -0500
>
>If the code is logical, organized, an
in EJB/COM-heavy
>apps?
>
>Nat Papovich
>ICQ 32676414
>"I'm for truth no matter who tells it."
>-Malcolm X, 1965
>
>
>-Original Message-
>From: Dave Watts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>Sent: Friday, October 20, 2000 10:12 AM
>To: CF-Talk
>
uot;I'm for truth no matter who tells it."
-Malcolm X, 1965
-Original Message-
From: Dave Watts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, October 20, 2000 3:03 PM
To: CF-Talk
Cc: Nat Papovich
Subject: RE: fusebox style: too much disk access?
I was afraid this would happen. I'm s
]>
Sent: October 20, 2000 9:00:47 PM GMT
Subject: RE: fusebox style: too much disk access?
Peter that was more of a theoretical guess than an actual statement
but I will reenforce it.
My assumptions based on how C compilers work.
There is a preprocessing phase for a individual page call.
St
I was afraid this would happen. I'm surprised that Sean Renet hasn't
contributed yet, though!
> What-evah, Dave. Fusebox kicks ass for the very implementation
> you mention. COMs can be called from a single file (using a new
> prefix com_filename.cfm if you want), then whenever you need
> that
aching or combinations
>thereof. Anyways someone enlighten us :)
>
>
>Jeremy Allen
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>-Original Message-
>From: Peter Theobald [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>Sent: Friday, October 20, 2000 4:47 PM
>To: CF-Talk
>Subject: Re: fusebox style: t
es to PCode or using some method of caching or combinations
thereof. Anyways someone enlighten us :)
Jeremy Allen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: Peter Theobald [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, October 20, 2000 4:47 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: fusebox style: too much d
problems.
>
>Thank you,
>Don Sparks
>not quite at the 32nd chamber of fusebox.
>
>- Original Message -
>From: "Steve Nelson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2000 3:23 PM
>Subject:
M-heavy
>apps?
>
>Nat Papovich
>ICQ 32676414
>"I'm for truth no matter who tells it."
>-Malcolm X, 1965
>
>
>-Original Message-
>From: Dave Watts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>Sent: Friday, October 20, 2000 10:12 AM
>To: CF-Talk
>Cc: '
it's not really a question of it's good or bad, it's a question of what
is it missing? I've seen a ton of Fusebox code with everything you've
mentioned below.
It ROCKS for Frames, here is a presentation on it:
http://www.fusebox.org/Files/presentations/FuseboxandFrames.ppt
Javascript works grea
1965
-Original Message-
From: Dave Watts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, October 20, 2000 10:12 AM
To: CF-Talk
Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: RE: fusebox style: too much disk access?
> > I'm not a Fusebox fan, by any measure,
>
> Why not? What would nee
> > I'm not a Fusebox fan, by any measure,
>
> Why not? What would need to be changed to make you a fan?
I'd have to be working on applications where the complex logic is stored in
CF, instead of in other application tiers. I don't want to fuel another "Is
Fusebox good or bad" thread, but I don
> I'm not a Fusebox fan, by any measure,
Why not? What would need to be changed to make you a fan?
Steve
but it won't hurt performance at all
> to access one file a thousand times, as opposed to accessing a thousand
> files once each. The "native" instruction set within the file will be cache
rs.com
ICQ: 346566
--
> -Original Message-
> From: Donald Sparks [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, October 20, 2000 8:45 AM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: Re: fusebox style: too much disk access?
>
>
> Okay, I'm not concerned with cfincludes and those related
> issues. I am concerned with the handling of multiple requests
> on the index or "fusebox" page (i.e.) a single page. For
> example say I have 1,000 users on my site. If they are all
> accessing index.cfm as opposed to 20 to 30 diffe
Thursday, October 19, 2000 3:23 PM
Subject: Re: fusebox style: too much disk access?
> Don't be confused by what Nat is saying, a single "fuseaction" in a
> Fusebox application may only hit 5-8 files. It's really not that big a
> deal.
>
> Steve
>
> Nat
al Message -
From: "Steve Nelson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2000 3:23 PM
Subject: Re: fusebox style: too much disk access?
> Don't be confused by what Nat is saying, a single "fuseaction" in
Message-
From: Steve Nelson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2000 3:23 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: fusebox style: too much disk access?
Don't be confused by what Nat is saying, a single "fuseaction" in a
Fusebox application may only hit 5-8 files. It&#
Don't be confused by what Nat is saying, a single "fuseaction" in a
Fusebox application may only hit 5-8 files. It's really not that big a
deal.
Steve
Nat Papovich wrote:
>
> A simple test of included files suggests that CF's internal file access
> functions were pratically built with a cfincl
Jeremy Allen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: Warrick, Mark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2000 4:53 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: fusebox style: too much disk access?
The performance hit is nearly undetectable. Don&#
The performance hit is nearly undetectable. Don't worry about it.
--
Mark Warrick
Phone: (714) 547-5386
Efax.com Fax: (801) 730-7289
Personal Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Personal URL: http://www.warrick.net
Business Email: [EMAIL PROTECTE
A simple test of included files suggests that CF's internal file access
functions were pratically built with a cfinclude-heavy architecture in mind.
Accessing dozens of files for a single page request is very quick. Out of
100 included files, you might notice a 10 ms increase than if you had all
t
Cold Fusion server tried to keep all template in cache memory in compiled P-Code. It
only checks the time stamp on the file, and if you set "Trusted Cache" it doesn't even
make that check.
At 01:00 PM 10/19/00 -0700, Cyrill Vatomsky wrote:
>I was reading on the fusebox concept of putting minute
34 matches
Mail list logo
