I guess we are in that 1%
Steve
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ben Forta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Server" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2001 2:28 PM
Subject: RE: Using CFAPP and inactive interfaces...
> 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
