> On Tuesday, Nov 19, 2002, at 12:05 US/Pacific, Dave Watts > wrote: >> Well, personally, I'm not much of a fan of the idea of >> loading UDFs >> into >> memory anyway - memory is good for storing data, but is >> wasted on code.
> Well, functions are just data. The benefit is that you > don't have to > include the file that defines the function... I have a sneaky suspicion that <cfset myudf = application.udf.myudf> is faster than <cffunction name="myudf"> ... </cffunction> or the cfscript equivalent... I've never load tested it, but i would expect that the CF processing engine, whether it's CF 5 pcode or CF MX Java has to take more time to read in and create the function than to assign a pointer to it. The pointer is after all only a byte or two of volatile memory lookup vs. the function definition which is invariably larger, plus time to actually parse and validate the code and make sure it's not missing a double-quote or a close-parenthesis somewhere, etc. Does anybody know for sure? Has anyone done any load testing to compare them? s. isaac dealey 954-776-0046 new epoch http://www.turnkey.to lead architect, tapestry cms http://products.turnkey.to certified advanced coldfusion 5 developer http://www.macromedia.com/v1/handlers/index.cfm?ID=21816 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com
