Ben,
When I worked for this company and heard that session variables were
frowned upon I could never get an answer out of them. And I agree, but
what can you do in an organization that has an IT department of well
over 300 people who dictate to you what you can and can't do.
I agree that and have said that in single server session is better, but
I have got into the habit of not doing it because all the sites I have
ended up working on ended up being in a clustered environment, so this
is why I stick with client for session state.
Now my current project, consists of 3 client variables and the rest is
then stored in a request scope or application if it is needed by all who
hit the site. This is my preferred method and it works fine, it doesn't
add to much overheads to the site.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ben Forta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, 26 July 2001 1:08 AM
> To: CF-Server
> Subject: RE: Using CFAPP and inactive interfaces...
>
> Andrew,
>
> Yes, SESSION is not designed for clusters where sessions can span
machines,
> true. But with less than 1% of CF apps running on clusters SESSION is
indeed
> usable for most CFers. Indeed, as SESSION variables are faster than
CLIENT
> and support more complex data types, I'd think that they'd be
preferred. Of
> course, there is still locking then needs to be contended with.
>
> As for "now allowed" - that is bizarre, I can't see why it would not
be
> allowed. From a client identification standpoint CLIENT and SESSION
work the
> same way, and from a security standpoint I'd think SESSION is more
secure
> because a) they don't persist, and b) they are saved nowhere.
>
> >> even though you can still get a sticky session it is
> >> not that reliable in these situations.
>
> I disagree with that.
>
> --- Ben
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrew Scott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2001 10:19 AM
> To: CF-Server
> Subject: RE: Using CFAPP and inactive interfaces...
>
>
> Well apart from the obvious session variables don't mix in load
balanced
> server farms... And I have worked in organizations were the security
of
> the company dictates that you are not allowed to use session variables
> and these companies have very large server farms in both ASP, CF and
> other technologies.
>
> I think that people should get in the habit of using client, rather
than
> session. Sure for single servers, it would be ok to use session and
even
> though you can still get a sticky session it is not that reliable in
> these situations.
>
> Sorry I should have said it like this first.
>
> Ben you should know this more than anyone!
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ben Forta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Wednesday, 25 July 2001 10:56 PM
> > To: CF-Server
> > Subject: RE: Using CFAPP and inactive interfaces...
> >
> > >> Don't use session variables, never a good idea.
> >
> > Why on earth not? Sure, locking can be a pain (although you can
always
> > single thread sessions), but "never a good idea"? Sorry, I don't buy
> that
> > one.
> >
> > --- Ben
>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
