I thought with CFMX7 we did not need to worry about locks.
-----Original Message----- From: Mark Smyth [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2005 6:53 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: Locking shared scope variables I'm trying to standardise a locking strategy when setting/reading shared scope variables I've did some research and came up with what I thought was a plan, exclusive-scoped locks for writing variables and readonly-scoped locks for reading variables. However I crossrefered this against the Macromedia CFMX coding standards and it has the following: "If the shared resource is in server or application scope, you should use named locks to control access - and choose a name that uniquely identifies the resource being locked, e.g., use server_varname when locking an update to server.varname.... If the shared resource is in session scope, you should generally use a scoped lock on session itself." AND "....most read operations do not need to be locked;" This is the first time I have come across this, so two questions come from this: 1. Why named locks for application & server variables and scope for session? 2. Why can read locks be ignored? I'd be greatful for opinions Thanks Mark ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| 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:4:200685 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=89.70.4 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
