Sorry to keep this thread alive, but that last comment bothers me tremendously and I just couldn't let it die.
I think you're 100% wrong. Keeping it simple is the easiest route. That doesn't have anything at all to do with "best". Hell, sometimes it's the simplest thing to run things on Windows, but that certainly doesn't make it the "best" thing to do. The simplest thing to do is to paint all of your customers' walls white, or at least one solid color, but that has nothing to do with what's "best". I don't know where the idea came from that the two concepts "simplest" and "best" are related. What is simplest to do is just that, "simplest", that with the lowest level of complication. What is best to do is that thing which will bring the most value to any scenario in the end. The only way one thing is better than another due to its simplicity is when you can do the exact same thing in a simpler manner. In this case, that means that if there were two equal ways to get alternate file extensions to work at the same level of performance, then the simplest would end up being better. If the simplest way to do things is the best, we'd all better go back to text-only websites. Now for the disclaimer: I actually do stay away from processing .htm or ..html files or any other known extensions in the app server just in case I ever need to use them for a bunch of stuff like you point out. -----Original Message----- From: Bryan F. Hogan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2005 12:20 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: .html files in cfmx7 You're not thinking far enough ahead. It depends on your situation. Here is a real life scenario. Boss comes to you without notice and says that he has a website that you need to setup on the shared server. Now on this shared server the html extensions are mapping through to CF. Now this new site surprisingly has a hundred thousand legal documents written in HTML (remember this is a inherited site) and this site gets lots of traffic. What are you to do, go and change all of your current applications that reference CF content in HTML files? Nope, you don't have time for that and the boss says nope. So what happens is that the entire server gets bogged down because CF is processing files it shouldn't be. Of course it all depends on your situation, but looking ahead will keep scenarios like that from happening. Another point is what happens if you have a failure on your CF server and need to replicate it on a new machine quickly. Are you going to remember all those funky extension mappings you setup? Of course that depends on how well you have everything documented, but really how many people actually do that? Again, it depends on your situation, but keeping it simple is usually the best route. :-) -----Original Message----- From: Ken Ferguson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2005 1:09 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: .html files in cfmx7 Running html files through the server isn't a bad thing either, necessarily. I agree that if you have a whole bunch of real html files with no cfml in them, then it's just silly to run them through the app server. However, I think a lot of people only have CFML files, but choose to name them with the htm or html file extensions. This doesn't cost anymore than naming them all with .cfm or .foo extensions. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| 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:4:200550 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
