things work as he described then scope should be slower than name. However,
when I increased the loop counters by 10 and run from 3 different browsers
the prediction that Issac made don't check out. The browser that makes the
1st call is about even for name and scope. But the 2nd and 3rd show that
scope is 2 as fast as name. Now either there is still something wrong with
how I test it and one has to build a dedicated cflock testing system or we
still didn't get it.
As a side note, cflock seams to be one of the most misunderstood elements of
ColdFusion. There is not much information on it anywhere I looked. And when
I find something it conflicts with information elsewhere. By far I am not an
expert and don't spend my days looking at cflock, however, it would be nice
if MM posted detailed specifications in a KB somewhere (last time I looked I
didn't find anything).
TK
http://www.tomkitta.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Chunshen (Don) Li [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, May 30, 2004 11:01 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: the ever popular cflock best practice revisited
Tom and Issac,
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
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
