While your main question has been answered very well already - your
session timeout is a measure of inactivity, and you almost certainly
don't need to lock this at all ...
> I want the session variable to last around 4 hours...
... you should probably reduce the value of the session timeout. You
IFrames and Ajax calls are the biggest killers when it comes to race
conditions, many people who have not locked down their scope writes have
traced it back to things like this.
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 7:19 PM, Jochem van Dieten wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 4:19 PM, Robert Harrison wrote
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 4:19 PM, Robert Harrison wrote:
> Please confirm... I only need that lock to hold long enough to set the
> variable (in case multiple people are logging in at the same time) and DO NOT
> need it for the entire session.
>
>
>
>
Actually this has no longer been required since CF8.
The only reason you need to lock now is in case of RACE conditions, where
the variable might be read/written to at the same time.
Locking wont do any harm though, it just causes the process to be single
threaded, so may slow things down a little
session and application should always be locked, when setting variables in
those scopes.
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 1:07 AM, Brian McCairn wrote:
>
> Does session.userid need a lock? Session variables are unique to each user
> and I guess are write once read many times.
>
>
--
Regards,
Andrew Sc
Does session.userid need a lock? Session variables are unique to each user and
I guess are write once read many times.
~|
Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now!
http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/
lug in to our blog: A&W Unplugged
http://www.austin-williams.com/unplugged
-Original Message-
From: Andrew Scott [mailto:andr...@andyscott.id.au]
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2011 11:02 AM
To: cf-talk
Subject: Re: CFLOCK QUESTION
That is correct. Application works the same, the only d
That is correct. Application works the same, the only difference is it is
not as critical as session, as session can be hijacked and is why you want
to keep them as low as possible.
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 12:54 AM, Robert Harrison <
rob...@austin-williams.com> wrote:
>
> Wow. I've been writing
Wow. I've been writing CF since 4.0 and never understood that correctly. I
thought the session variables lasted from when they were first set until
time-out.
Now if I'm understanding this correctly session variables timeout is actually
defining only the length of time the user can be idle..
That is correct.
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 12:48 AM, Robert Harrison <
rob...@austin-williams.com> wrote:
>
> > remember that when a page from a session is requested this value is
> always reset back to the value you define in your application settings.
>
> Are you saying the each time a page is r
> remember that when a page from a session is requested this value is always
> reset back to the value you define in your application settings.
Are you saying the each time a page is requested the session variable timeout
is reset? Sounds like that's what you are saying,
Robert B. Harrison
Application variables will depend on busy the site is, and whether you are
using singletons to be stored in it. So it wont matter what you set this
too.
Session variables is another thing, these are temporary variables based on a
per session. And you wont to keep that as low as possible. Most app
ust be &.
Plug in to our blog: A&W Unplugged
http://www.austin-williams.com/unplugged
-Original Message-
From: Stephane Vantroyen [mailto:s...@emakina.com]
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2011 10:25 AM
To: cf-talk
Subject: Re: CFLOCK QUESTION
It's correct, but you don't need
It's correct, but you don't need to make it that long : timeout="20" is too
long for me, timeout="5" would be really long enough (if not too long already).
Something I don't get though : why do you make your application last the same
value as the session scope? Do you really need your applicatio
I didn't do a , but I was cfdumping, adding marker characters (like
22) and cfaborting... It never made it inside the CFLOCK. And this is
BEFORE the cfif, i was careful to place my condition check in between the
CFLOCK and the CFIF.
However, I don't think this is a Model-Glue problem, I t
> I posted this to the Model Glue group too, but it sems like a
> general question that cf-talk might be able to answer
>
> I've traced the error to this line in /ModelGlue/unity/ModelGlue.cfm:
>
> throwOnTimeout="true">
>
> For some reason, its not entering this cflock. I'm not
> talking ab
I have to disagree with you. Did you try adding a after the
lock? Note that there is a cfif right after the lock. Maybe the
condition was false.
On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 5:34 PM, Jeff Gladnick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I dumped the application scope all the way through at every logic point. I
I dumped the application scope all the way through at every logic point. It
was definitely NOT going in.
The weird part was I finally fixed it by restarting BlueDragon JX. Then it
magically worked with no code changes.
All I did previously in BlueDragon admin was tweak some mappings settings.
I dumped the application scope all the way through at every logic point. It
was definitely NOT going in.
The weird part was I finally fixed it by restarting BlueDragon JX. Then it
magically worked with no code changes.
All I did previously in BlueDragon admin was tweak some mappings settings.
How do you know it's not going in?
On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 3:48 PM, Jeff Gladnick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I posted this to the Model Glue group too, but it sems like a general
> question that cf-talk might be able to answer
>
> I've traced the error to this line in /ModelGlue/unity/ModelGlue
Thanks for the tip, I tried that, but I'm still getting a timeout error when
the server tries to create an exclusive lock.
Ali
-Original Message-
From: Aaron Rouse [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2001 11:51 AM
To: Ali Awan
Subject: Re: cflock question
I am not
The scope attribute is probably 4.5+ only
- Original Message -
From: "JB Mentzer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2001 9:24 AM
Subject: CFLOCK question
> Hi all
>
> I'm attempting to execute this:
>
>
>
> On CF Server 4.0.
>
> Th
Yep. I would say a for sure chance. Only a 4.5 attribute. Use the name
attribute instead.
Rick
-Original Message-
From: JB Mentzer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2001 9:25 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: CFLOCK question
Hi all
I'm attempting to execute this:
On CF
AAMOF, the scope attribute was added in 4.5. you have to use "NAME" in 4.0.
chris olive, cio
cresco technologies
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.crescotech.com
-Original Message-
From: JB Mentzer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2001 10:25 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject:
I think the scope attribute was added in CF 4.5 - correct me if I am wrong.
It is not in any of my CF 4.0 documentation.
Russel
Russel Madere, Jr. Senior Web Developer
ICQ: 5446158 http://www.TurboSquid.com
S
On 2/7/01, JB Mentzer penned:
>
>I removed the attribute and the error goes away. Any chance that CF
>Server 4.0 doesn't support the scope attribute?
Hit the nail right on the head. :) If you put it in a cfif block on
the version, the same thing will happen. You have to do a cfif and
place the
That is correct ... the scope attributes was introduced in version 4.5
Allan Pichler
-Original Message-
From: JB Mentzer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2001 7:25 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: CFLOCK question
Hi all
I'm attempting to execute this:
On CF Server 4.
> I am using a client variable (Item)that is an array of structures.
> This client variable is set to be store in database.
>
>
> Should I use for cfwddx?
No, there's no need to do that.
Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
http://www.figleaf.com/
voice: (202) 797-5496
fax: (202) 797-5444
-
You could also declare local variables and assign them the value of the
application variables. Then you wouldn't have to lock them when reading.
-Original Message-
From: Alex Puriche [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2000 2:02 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: CFLOCK Que
You should lock all accesses to application variables.
Reads should be locked with "ReadOnly" type locks. Writes should be locked
with "Exclusive" type locks.
You will probably want to consider wrapping (at least) your Exclusive locks
in cftry/cfcatch.
Cary
At 12:02 AM 5/18/00 +0300, you wr
30 matches
Mail list logo
