No worries Paul, it's a valid thing to point out.

On 9/2/05, Paul Kenney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> 
> 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
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:4:217269
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

Reply via email to