A single "Fuseaction", as Steve mentions may hit a minumum of 5-8. The last
(very large) project I worked on routinely called 30 or more files for a
single page request. We thought it was great! All those files means
debugging is a breeze, site updates are easy, and creating new functionality
is oftentimes just a matter of cfincluding already existing files.
As Mr. Mark Warrick said - "The performance hit is nearly undetectable.
Don't worry about it."
Nat Papovich
ICQ 32676414
"I'm for truth no matter who tells it."
-Malcolm X, 1965
-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Nelson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2000 3:23 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: fusebox style: too much disk access?
Don't be confused by what Nat is saying, a single "fuseaction" in a
Fusebox application may only hit 5-8 files. It's really not that big a
deal.
Steve
Nat Papovich wrote:
>
> A simple test of included files suggests that CF's internal file access
> functions were pratically built with a cfinclude-heavy architecture in
mind.
> Accessing dozens of files for a single page request is very quick. Out of
> 100 included files, you might notice a 10 ms increase than if you had all
> the code on the same page. Now that 10 ms performance hit gives you a
> scalable, intelligible architecture. If you have any experience with
really
> large sites, you know that the only safe way to scale a project is to
break
> it into small "minute modules".
>
> All this is without mentioning CF's ability to cache templates
> automatically. Accessing a file from RAM is basically instantaneous.
>
> If code scalability, readability, longevity, and understandability is
> important now or will be important later, you need to adopt a structured
> application methodology like Fusebox.
>
> Nat Papovich
> ICQ 32676414
> "I'm for truth no matter who tells it."
> -Malcolm X, 1965
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cyrill Vatomsky [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2000 1:00 PM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: fusebox style: too much disk access?
>
> I was reading on the fusebox concept of putting minute modules into
separate
> files and the question is: wouldn't that slow the site by having to access
> too many different disk files to load one page?
>
> Cyrill
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists or send a message
with 'unsubscribe' in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
