well,
we would probably use cfmodule instead of the custom tags if custom tags win
this discussion, so I'm not really worried about that part. your viewpoints on
using cfmodule instead of cfinclude however are interesting.
-----Original Message-----
From: Glenn Crocker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 11:23 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [KCFusion] include vs custom tagI've built some substantially huge CF sites, and using <cfmodule> instead of <cfinclude> wherever you can is critical. Execution time is probably not the key issue, really, it's development time. If you can build the site more reliably, faster, and cheaper, a half millisecond per page is irrelevant. I've spent a huge amount of time converting an old side-effect-riddled cfinclude-style site to cfmodule, and it's paying dividends every time we do it.I wouldn't advise going crazy with full-on custom tag madness. In particular, hosting sites that rely on first-class custom tags (as opposed to cfmodule) can be difficult.For small enough sites, this kind of thing might not be a consideration, but if you're looking at over a hundred .cfm files, cfmodule will save your sanity.-glenn-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Dunwiddie, Bruce
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 10:29 AM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: [KCFusion] include vs custom tagWe're still using cf 4.5 sp2. We're currently having a disagreement about whether to define our new framework for a site based on custom tags for each page basically, or the same thing using includes instead. I personally think the custom tags are a complete necessity, because of variable scoping, but I need to know the true benchmarking difference that people have seen when using one vs the other, or just in a per call difference in milliseconds per call, if anyone happens to know it or can point me to somewhere with the stats.
