Sorry. You did say that, and I missed it. You are right. On 9/2/05, Brian Kotek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > That's why I said "nearly always". If you do end up needing an > application-scoped CFC that changes state, and if race conditions are > a concern, then you need to lock the writes to the instance data of > the CFC. > > On 9/2/05, Paul Kenney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > This is not always the case. Sometimes CFCs are placed in the > application > > scope with state that changes all the time. The CFC could be a very busy > > manager, and not just a stateless utility or something. It might be in > the > > application scope because you only want one, and no more. > > > > On 9/2/05, Brian Kotek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > You only need to lock to prevent race conditions. Since > > > application-scoped CFCs should nearly always be stateless (they have > > > no instance data, or the instance data does not change once the > > > component is initialized), locking isn't an issue. > > > > > > On 9/2/05, Snake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > What about locking ? > > > > > > > > - > > > > snake > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Russ [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Sent: 02 September 2005 14:59 > > > > To: CF-Talk > > > > Subject: RE: CFC's - Most efficient scope? > > > > > > > > Well we usually use > > > > > > > > <cfinvoke object="application.myCFC" method="myMethod" > > > > returnVariable="variables.myvar" argument1="value" argument2="some > other > > > > value" /> > > > > > > > > Or the proper way to do it > > > > > > > > <cfinvoke object="application.myCFC" method="myMethod" > > > > returnvariable="variables.myvar"> > > > > <cfinvokeparam name="argument1" value="myvalue"> > > > > <cfinvokeparam name="argument2" value="some other value"> > > > > </cfinvoke> > > > > > > > > > > > > I think storing it in the application scope is the best place, since > > > then > > > > you can share it throughout your application. We do the same > thing... we > > > > have all our db calls in different cfc's, and we keep them in > > > application > > > > scope. Since they're cached until the application is reset, they're > very > > > > efficient. > > > > > > > > Russ > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Andy Mcshane [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Sent: Friday, September 02, 2005 5:16 AM > > > > To: CF-Talk > > > > Subject: CFC's - Most efficient scope? > > > > > > > > Hi, been playing around with CFC's and fusebox4.1 for a bit, nothing > too > > > > advanced. In the main part I use CFC's to do all of my database > work, > > > they > > > > contain all of my calls to the database using stored procedures. My > > > question > > > > is what is the best amd most efficient way to execute them? At the > > > moment I > > > > initialize all of my CFC's into the application scope and then in my > > > fusebox > > > > model xml file use the following syntax; > > > > > > > > <invoke object="application.MyObject" > > > > methodcall="MyMethod( Arg1, Arg2, etc)" > > > > returnvariable="MyReturnVar"> > > > > > > > > OR > > > > > > > > <invoke object="application.MyObject" > > > > methodcall="MyMethod( argumentcollection=MyArgs )" > > > > returnvariable="MyReturnVar"> > > > > > > > > Is this an efficient way of doing this? Is there a better way to do > it? > > > Have > > > > I completely misunderstood the use of CFC's? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Discover CFTicket - The leading ColdFusion Help Desk and Trouble Ticket application http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=48 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:217266 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
