line you will have the ability to extend or over ride those functions as
needed.
~Simon
Simon Horwith
CTO, Etrilogy Ltd.
Member of Team Macromedia
Macromedia Certified Instructor
Certified Advanced ColdFusion MX Developer
Certified Flash MX Developer
CFDJList - List Administrator
http://www.how2cf.com/
-----Original Message-----
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 08 February 2004 06:43
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: CFCs vs. CFFUNCTIONs
If your CFCs aren't stateful that there is no difference between using
CFCs and UDFs. On the other hand, if they are stateful then using UDFs
would be a lot of work for possibly zero benefit. In the end, CFCs and
UDFs should be chosen for how well they map to the needs of the
application. The difference in performance is so small that it isn't
even worth considering.
-Matt
On Feb 8, 2004, at 12:31 AM, Michael Dinowitz wrote:
> While describing a methodology I'm using for a project, Dave Watts
> asked a very interesting question. The methodology was to cache a
> number of CFCs in the application scope and store user information
> (that will be used by the CFCs) in the session scope. Dave's question
> was basically "why make them CFCs? Why not just make them all
> CFFUNCTIONs?"
> Take for example a Users CFC which contains all of the functions for
> user login, logout, information, etc. A single cached CFC could do it
> or a host of CFFUNCTIONs that are included inside a single CFINCLUDE.
> A third option would be to cache each CFFUNCTION into the application
> scope for use.
> These are all interesting approaches. What are peoples thoughts on
> these? Does one look better than the other? Faster? More optimal?
>
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
