An update:
Early this morning's testing with my client (total of 3 concurrent users hitting same button/function simultaneously) seems to prove that
"locking session variables with SCOPE of session attribute and TIMEOUT attribute value set according to an educated guess on the estimate of the execution time of content inside a lock" WORKS WELL.
On "<cflock name="#createuuid()#">, my guess is, cf server (be it 5x or 6x) may treat "quasi variables", say, cflock with NAME attribute is one of them, as variable class, then, according to CF spec, variable name may not start with numeric value, then of course this type of NAMEd locking would fail, while <cflock name="str#createuuid()#"> may be able to lock,
making sense? or do I need more coffee? Any MM cf server architecture dude here? to confirm or clarify?
Don
>I love "mud", Issac, :)
>I think you made some valid points. To create a cf lock like
><cflock name='session' ...> is totally and obviously senseless.
>
>Don
>
>>http://www.sys-con.com/story/?storyid=44477&DE=1
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
