OOPS, do I feel a little dumb at the moment... So the PageContext is not an unsupported feature.
Sorry for any frustration or confusion I may have caused... Blushingly yours... J On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 11:56:34 -0600, Jared Rypka-Hauer - CMG, LLC <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Personally, I've always used the session scope more heavily than the > application scope. However, if you tinker with the gutz ot Tartan, > Fusebox, MachII and any of a number of other products, they're all > using the application scope HEAVILY. Couple that with the availability > of the application scope tools in application.cfc (simply by example) > and even Ray Camden's RAM-caching custom tag, and you can really only > arrive at one conclusion: > > Use it! Use it lots!!! Use the application scope, please, that's WHAT > IT'S THERE FOR. > > I'd recommend an asynchronous process to update the application scope > data, i.e. a cron job in CFADMIN to create the data. Use a temp > application var that only it knows about to create the data for the > application scope every half-hour or whatever, and then at the last > second use a named lock to do structInsert(application, "cacheData", > cronCacheData,true). I don't have time to write out all the benefits > from that method, but they should be fairly obvious. Speed, minimal > locking, complete flexibility, abstraction from users, time-based > instead of click-based... I used this on a project with a process that > genned a PDF containg 6 pages of CFM-created GANTT charts. I'm still > uber-proud of that site. Saved me countless amounts of trouble. > > JPA said that adding RAM to a server is cheaper than > development/testing, and he makes a great point. The ONLY GOTCHA with > using the application scope: DO it RIGHT. Account for updates and the > locking they may or may not require depending on how you implement > them... just insure that they happen in an orderly and controlled > fashion. Don't use scope locks, use named locks, and if you want to, > simply combine static HTML generation with the application scope and > cache a completed HTML file. Fusebox4 does it, and Camden's RAM cache > does it. > > I will argue this point with Kam, though. There isn't even romotely > enough justification to use getPageScope() here. It's an unsupported > feature, and it's to be used at ones own risk... it should require > heavy justification before incorporating it into the application. > Using it to save a few cycles when it would be just as easy to create > a scheduled template, even if it uses cfsavecontent and cffile > action="write" is a Really Bad Idea, especially from a standards > perspective. I want my code to be as widely runnable and as simple as > possible. From a CF perspective that means standards, and to start > pulling the underlying Java into CF for no truly justifyable reason > is... well... a Really Bad Idea. > > Laterz, > J > > > On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 12:18:33 -0700, Figy, Kam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'd be less worried about the speed of serving or ram usage as I would > > how long the X minutes between reloads is. Re-grabbing several MB of > > data from a database is going to make your site speed crawl while it > > happens, not to mention you'd need to carefully cflock the application > > scope writes to ensure your content was coherent - so it'd all be > > single-threaded as well. > > > > Overall I agree with the people who are suggesting static publishing, > > since a static HTML page is probably as fast as a cf page coming out of > > the application scope. As a hybrid solution, or if securing pages is > > needed, consider publishing the static pages outside the web root and > > using a CF page and getPageContext().include() - which doesn't have CF > > parse the include if it's a static type (iirc). > > > > Kam > > > > -- > Continuum Media Group LLC > Burnsville, MN 55337 > http://www.web-relevant.com > http://cfobjective.neo.servequake.com > -- Continuum Media Group LLC Burnsville, MN 55337 http://www.web-relevant.com http://cfobjective.neo.servequake.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Logware (www.logware.us): a new and convenient web-based time tracking application. Start tracking and documenting hours spent on a project or with a client with Logware today. Try it for free with a 15 day trial account. http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=67 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:196701 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.4 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
