Brian's comparison needs qualification. If a request takes 400ms to render, but 350 of that was a slow query, then it'll only drop to around 360ms with FB4. It's only the framework code that is enormously faster, not the application code. In my experiences, the framework overhead was annoying, but fairly small (never more than 10-15%) of total execution time. Assuming that tenfold decrease is valid (it's probably reasonable), you're only looking at shaving 10% off your total execution time. The point is that FB3 isn't horribly slower, it's the application that takes most of the time, not the framework. FB4 is has a lighter weight execution time, but it's a small difference overall.
Hal Helms (the godfather of FB) has his personal site running XFB, the precursor to FB3, so it's now 2 generations behind and functioning like a champ. I've got sites in production that are running XFB, FB3 and FB4. I don't intend to go back and migrate any time soon, because all are running just dandy. And while it'd be nice to have FB4 across the board, the core ideals of the framework were mostly there back in XFB, and that's the important part. FB3 and FB4 are just more refined ways to get the same results. barneyb --- Barney Boisvert, Senior Development Engineer AudienceCentral [EMAIL PROTECTED] voice : 360.756.8080 x12 fax : 360.647.5351 www.audiencecentral.com > -----Original Message----- > From: Matt Robertson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2003 1:25 PM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: Re: Cons to Fusebox > > > Brian Kotek wrote: > >Performance in Fusebox 4 is almost 10 TIMES better than Fusebox 3. In > >other words, a page that took 400 milliseconds to render in Fusebox 3 > >takes about 40 milliseconds to render in production mode with Fusebox 4. > > So what happens to all the folks who hitched up their wagons to > FB3? Time for a free (i.e. unbillable) do-over? How does this > reflect on the cost of implementing FB3, in retrospect? Will > new-cause but similar-effect issues arise in FB4? > > I'm anxiously awaiting fb4's release as I very much want to give > it a look. Standardization is good; disciplined code is good. > Torpedoed performance and a limited lifespan after adoption is terrifying. > > -- > ------------------------------------------- > Matt Robertson, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > MSB Designs, Inc. http://mysecretbase.com > ------------------------------------------- > > -- > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| 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 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
