I'd bet money that the issue was a pre-mx one. If you remember in CF 5, there was the issue of locking of memory variables and corruption of them if not done. This is not a case in MX so it should not be a problem. Actually, this is a plug for CFObjective and CFUnited where there will be people talking about creating CFC factories to control CFCs that will be used across applications. I'd use something like that in this case.
> Thanks guys, > > Why is it frowned upon by the way? I've heard such talk before, that's why > I > ask, but I'm not sure of the reasons. > > Baz > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Mark A Kruger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2006 5:41 PM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: RE: SERVER scope > > If as you say this library is "server wide" then I say go for it :) But > make > sure and check to see if it already exists and only instantiate it once - > othewise whats' the point? > > -mark > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Baz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2006 4:25 PM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: SERVER scope > > > Hi, > > I have a CFC that I use across all applications. It's basically a global > UDF > library that stores no data. > > Is it ok to store this CFC in the SERVER scope rather than the application > scope? Is using a named lock for this ok: > > <cflock name="ServerUtils" type="exclusive"> > <cfset Server.Utils=createObject('Component','SystemUtils') /> > </cflock> > > Cheers, > Baz > > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:232888 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
