Oh, thanks, now I realize for what the bacth is for. Well, maybe this can be good when you're migrating applications to a new server. Run the batch once and the visitors wont wait for the JIT.
Thanks anyway Robert! []'s Alex -----Original Message----- From: Robert Everland [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 25/07/2002 5:58 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: It's official: CFMX is 10% faster than CF5 True, but he was also talking about a development machine, on a production enviroment that will help him. Also that would help him if he edits a lot of pages, he could just run that batch file and all the pages he changed would be compiled. So that's a 50% solution. Robert Everland III Web Developer Extraordinaire Dixon Ticonderoga Company http://www.dixonusa.com -----Original Message----- From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2002 4:48 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: It's official: CFMX is 10% faster than CF5 That doesn't address his complaint. He still has to wait for ColdFusion to recompile his templates every time he modifies them. Matt Liotta President & CEO Montara Software, Inc. http://www.montarasoftware.com/ V: 415-577-8070 F: 415-341-8906 P: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -----Original Message----- > From: Robert Everland [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2002 1:31 PM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: RE: It's official: CFMX is 10% faster than CF5 > > Here is a way to pre compile your pages. Call the file MX, then MX > c:\inetpub\wwwroot\whatever > > @setlocal > set NEO_INSTALL=c:\cfusionMX > set PATH=%NEO_INSTALL%\runtime\bin;%PATH% > java -classpath %NEO_INSTALL%\lib\cfusion.jar coldfusion.tools.Compiler > -webroot %NEO_INSTALL%\wwwroot %* > @endlocal > > Robert Everland III > Web Developer Extraordinaire > Dixon Ticonderoga Company > http://www.dixonusa.com > > -----Original Message----- > From: Alex Hubner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2002 4:32 PM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: It's official: CFMX is 10% faster than CF5 > > > CFMX Performance Brief: CFMX is "only" 10% faster than CF5 under Win2k > boxes: > http://www.macromedia.com/software/coldfusion/whitepapers/pdf/cfmx_perfo > rmance_brief.pdf > > Well, almost everybody knows it in it's day-by-day tests/usages... > > I disagree with the tests. CFMX is not 10% faster than CF5... It looks > that MM doesn't take in consideration the time (very long, specially > on templates > that calls lots of includes, such as fusebox ones), to the just-in-time > compiler finish it's job (which takes 100% of my CPU)... I've told once > and > I'm gonna say it again: it's a pain in the ass wait CFMX compiles my > templates everytime I modify it. In a production environment this is > acceptable but in a development environment is realy bad! It becames > painless if you use 1Gb processors or faster but... Well, does anybody has > the same complain? > > []'s > Alex > > > ______________________________________________________________________ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
