al Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2001 2:02 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: request scope revisted
All my DSNs are request-scope.
Advantage: No locking needed.
best, paul
At 05:44 PM 1/10/01 -0500, you wrote:
>Anyone out there set
At 10:07 1/11/01 -0500, you wrote:
>Anyone using fusebox uses the request.dsn (or .datasource). It can be done
>either way and as far as I am concerned, there isnt an
>advantage/disadvantage to either way.
If you use the application scope you always have to use CFLOCK to read
and write to it. A
Anyone using fusebox uses the request.dsn (or .datasource). It can be done
either way and as far as I am concerned, there isnt an
advantage/disadvantage to either way.
--=@ greg @=--
- Original Message -
From: "Won Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesda
> Anyone out there set a request.dsn instead of an application.dsn?
> If so is there an advantage?
OK, answering the actual question;
The main advantage is that Request doesn't need an Application to be
defined, while (suprisingly) the Application scope does
The Request scope quickly allows you
All my DSNs are request-scope.
Advantage: No locking needed.
best, paul
At 05:44 PM 1/10/01 -0500, you wrote:
>Anyone out there set a request.dsn instead of an application.dsn?
>If so is there an advantage?
~~
Structure your ColdFusion code with
I use request scopes for most of my page level data, ie. mapping names,
paths, dsns, site name, contact emails, etc.. I also duplicate most of the
session vars into a request structure and use them throughout the app to get
around the infamous CFLOCK problems..
Darryl
-Original Message-
6 matches
Mail list logo
