Chris,
That number seems to be accurate. When you take into account that most CF
development is in house, Intranets and stuff, many of those are single
boxes.
--- Ben
-----Original Message-----
From: Gilbert, Chris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2001 11:56 AM
To: CF-Server
Subject: RE: Using CFAPP and inactive interfaces...
Andrew, I think its a matter of perspective. For example, we've gradually
moved from Session to Client stored in the database because we went to a
multi-server environment and finally to cookie-based Client storage because
of performance accessing the database. As our load increased and we scaled
up, we had to be willing to get by with less and less built in
functionality. Thats all there is to it. Now I have to serialize any
structures with WDDX, store them in a cookie and be aware of all the issues
that come with cookies (limited storage space, can't write a cookie on a
page that uses CFLOCATION, etc.). In fact we've had to abandon built in
Client scope cookies altogether because we needed to use some JavaScript to
help us get around a CFLOCATION problem.
Basically, if I could get away with using SESSION scoped structures, I would
do so in a minute. But because of the size, scale, and distribution of our
apps we need to custom write almost all of the functionality. While I would
never go back--I like the control--I can certainly understand why most
developers, and probably all beginning CF coders, would want to stick with
Session variables.
-Chris Gilbert, Fodors.com
OBTW, Ben is that 1% figure you quoted really accurate?!? We're running on 4
Solaris boxes and I never would have guessed that a multi-server environment
would amount to only 1% of the installations. I guess there must be a lot of
small department and intranet applications padding the 99% because just from
a reliability and redundancy point of view, I can't imagine relying on just
one box.
-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew Scott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2001 10:23 AM
To: CF-Server
Subject: RE: Using CFAPP and inactive interfaces...
And I would guess that this is all situated on one server, now what will
happen when this load gets too much and you need to add an extra server.
Using session variables means you need to then be tied to high end load
balancing, or stick session scenarios.
Using the client scope instead makes it easier for not only the scaling
of the servers, but means you don't need to revisit the code and rewrite
this code.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Herman Cremer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, 25 July 2001 11:51 PM
> To: CF-Server
> Subject: RE: Using CFAPP and inactive interfaces...
>
> I have developed a whole stack of stuff
> using session variables.
>
> Like an online accounting system with
> 100+ users at a time, bashing away 12 hours a day.
>
> Never had a single problem.
>
> As far as I'm concerned....session vars works
> very good.
>
>
> Herman
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at
http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
'unsubscribe' in the body or visit the list page at www.houseoffusion.com
