> I am not sure that you'll get performance gains by putting > the function in the application scope. You could do a > <cfinclude> of your UDF lib, each time you plan to use it > or you could put it in the application.cfm (then all the > pages will be able to use the UDF library). I suppose it > would the best way to do what you need, isn't it?
I think I had read something that mentioned copying a UDF from a persistent scope being slightly faster than initially creating it -- or at least, I have some vague recollection of that, which is why I'd created the framework for storing them there. Copying them to the request scope from there also prevents me potentially having conflicts by needing and including a function or library in two separate modules, and then including one module within the other and having the same function declared twice, which produces an error in CF 5 ( has this changed in CFMX? ) ... which would be inefficient anyway... and I generally try to make as much use of the request scope as possible for anything that is or might be used application-wide... the application actually has a lot of meta-architecture in general. > Benoit > PS : That's just some personal thoughts about how to > organize your code in > CFMX, not universal ones ; ). Good pointers tho, thanks. :) Isaac Certified Advanced ColdFusion 5 Developer www.turnkey.to 954-776-0046 ______________________________________________________________________ Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.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
