Interesting. I would assume that in many instances in which you suspect the potential for race conditions, you still won't actually encounter race conditions. So is there a downside to locking when no race conditions are present?
And to be clear, is the "best practices" approach to use named locks when you suspect the potential for race conditions, as opposed to scope locks? When do you need to lock the entire scope anymore? Jim http://by104fd.bay104.hotmail.msn.com/cgi-bin/compose?type=r&msg=65945CCB-42A8-43E8-A62E-C35E3552995C&start=0&len=3581&curmbox=00000000%2d0000%2d0000%2d0000%2d000000000001&a=e53d9f0f71cc6daafcc6796fe0c642ce5b46c1a74ae66cb8450fe1b28776c839# Send >From: "Robertson-Ravo, Neil (RX)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: [email protected] >To: CF-Talk <[email protected]> >Subject: Re: MX7 use of cflock >Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 20:10:29 -0000 > >Basically, you do not have to use cflock as abundant as we did in pre-mx. >You still have to lock when a race condition may occur but your colleague >is >correct to a degree, cflock is not really required as it will no longer >crash the server etc but if a race can occurr you should lock... >Ultimately, >look at the process and decide for yourself. In some cases, it won't do you >any harm to lock (as long as the lock doesn't become a hindrance :-) > > > > > > > > > > > > >"This e-mail is from Reed Exhibitions (Gateway House, 28 The Quadrant, >Richmond, Surrey, TW9 1DN, United Kingdom), a division of Reed Business, >Registered in England, Number 678540. It contains information which is >confidential and may also be privileged. It is for the exclusive use of >the >intended recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient(s) please >note >that any form of distribution, copying or use of this communication or the >information in it is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have >received this communication in error please return it to the sender or call >our switchboard on +44 (0) 20 89107910. The opinions expressed within this >communication are not necessarily those expressed by Reed Exhibitions." >Visit our website at http://www.reedexpo.com > >-----Original Message----- >From: jim ostlund >To: CF-Talk >Sent: Wed Feb 28 20:00:17 2007 >Subject: MX7 use of cflock > >I have been using earlier versions of CF since 2.0. I am just getting >started in MX7, however. > >A colleague recently told me that you don't really need to use cflock on >session or application variables and so on anymore. I have not read >anything > >in the docs or anywhere else to indicate that this is the case. It is, >however, my understanding that if you need to read or write app or session >locks, you no longer need to lock the entire scope, but that you should now >used named locks rather. > >Can anyone shed some light on this topic? > >Jim > >_________________________________________________________________ >Play Flexicon: the crossword game that feeds your brain. PLAY now for FREE. > > http://zone.msn.com/en/flexicon/default.htm?icid=flexicon_hmtagline > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| ColdFusion MX7 and Flex 2 Build sales & marketing dashboard RIAâs for your business. Upgrade now http://www.adobe.com/products/coldfusion/flex2 Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Talk/message.cfm/messageid:271122 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Talk/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.4
