At 11:52 PM 7/24/2002 -0500, you wrote:
I understand what you are saying about clearly stating the inputs (and the
outputs) to make sense of what is going into the tag...
But in this case, we are basically passing variable datasource and table
names, color settings and such... Any noticable
I try to avoid Custom Tags as much as possible.. takes twice the time
to run compared to a Regular Includeby defining its own space.
Unless its something low level(CFX) CF cant do.. why bother?
One word - Recursion!
You can't recurce (effectively) with a CFINCLUDE, but using a CF_ or
Just to note, there is a performance difference between
your two methods. Specifically, passing data through the
attributes scope of a custom tag causes a copy of the
variable to happen. As you can imagine copy variables
can have a performance impact if there is a significant
number of
local vs. request scope variables? What if any are some
of the drawbacks of going this way? Resources, speed
ect..
The only thing I'd mention about this in particular is try not to reference
the request variables directly in your custom tags without using them as the
default for the custom-tag
-8070
F: 415-341-8906
P: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: Philip Arnold - ASP [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2002 5:50 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: local vs. request
I try to avoid Custom Tags as much as possible.. takes twice the
time
to run compared
That was beautiful :-)
You can easily do recursion with cfinclude you just need to manage a
stack. This was discussion on BACFUG recently, see
http://mail.vfive.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?1:mss:8970:200207:lkhpedlenceoek
dnajco.
Matt Liotta
local vs. request scope
variables? What if any are some of the drawbacks of going this way? Resources, speed
ect..
Thanks in advance
Paul Giesenhagen
QuillDesign
__
This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted
of setting local
vs. request scope variables? What if any are some of the
drawbacks of going this way? Resources, speed ect..
It will make absolutely no noticeable difference as far as performance. It
will only make a difference in a conceptual sense. By that, I mean that if
you write CFML custom
into the tags.
Paul Giesenhagen
QuillDesign
- Original Message -
From: Dave Watts [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2002 11:52 PM
Subject: RE: local vs. request
I have an application that sets many different local
variables (about 40 or so) on each page
I understand what you are saying about clearly stating the
inputs (and the outputs) to make sense of what is going into
the tag... But in this case, we are basically passing variable
datasource and table names, color settings and such... Any
noticable parameters are being passed as
PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: local vs. request
I have an application that sets many different local
variables (about 40 or so) on each page load ... We are using
a few custom tags here and there and it would be great to use
the request scope instead of local just for ease of use
environment variables on all my sites so I know they're always
there.
-Original Message-
From: Paul Giesenhagen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, 25 July 2002 4:53 p.m.
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: local vs. request
I understand what you are saying about clearly stating the
inputs
to those who are looking at the code. (comment
away!)
Thanks
Paul Giesenhagen
QuillDesign
- Original Message -
From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2002 11:57 PM
Subject: RE: local vs. request
Just to note, there is a performance
Just to note, there is a performance difference between
your two methods. Specifically, passing data through the
attributes scope of a custom tag causes a copy of the
variable to happen. As you can imagine copy variables can
have a performance impact if there is a significant number
of
-
From: Paul Giesenhagen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2002 10:04 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: local vs. request
So in the case of 40 or so variables.whatever being set, you like the
idea
of setting them as request.whatever and thus the custom tags can use
Subject: Re: local vs. request
So in the case of 40 or so variables.whatever being set, you like the
idea
of setting them as request.whatever and thus the custom tags can use
these
settings without having to dupe up on them either as attributes or
calling
the preference file within
I think that the removal of innate dependencies usually outweighs the
potential for performance degradation - you'd need a lot of variables
going
back and forth to have a measurable difference, in my experience. If
performance is your only concern, the fact that you're using custom
tags
at
In any case, so as not to muddy the waters too much, the
original question was specifically about whether there's
a performance difference between storing data in local
variables and Request variables. There isn't any difference,
and following your line of reasoning, the original
, July 24, 2002 10:04 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: local vs. request
So in the case of 40 or so variables.whatever being set, you like
the
idea
of setting them as request.whatever and thus the custom tags can
use
these
settings without having to dupe up on them either as attributes
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: local vs. request
Ahhh... Application ... I guess I will bump up the question, these
could
actually be put into the Application, as like I said, they are called
for
every page ... these values are dynamically written to a file and then
called as an include
20 matches
Mail list logo
