I agree whole heatedly. I think the RAD Benefits of CF have taken a bit of a hit with the pre-compilation issues.
I have a few templates which generate CFM files on the fly and then include them in order to execute dynamically generated CFML. Am I correct in assuming that these pages will NEVER be pre-compiled and my end users will have to sit through this complication every time? Is there are better way to create & execute dynamic CFML? What about templates which <cfinclude> different files for each request. The <cfincludes's> are dynamic. Will it recompile each time the template stack is different? It would be nice to be able to specify if you wanted to pre compile or not, so you could do it on the production server but not on your dev box. Brook At 01:48 PM 25/07/02 -0700, you wrote: >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 > > > > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com 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
