It is true that this happens. Here's a new of distinct classes that exist for an Email.cfc in our system.
cfEmail2ecfc863240606$funcADDATTACHMENT.class cfEmail2ecfc863240606$funcGETATTACHMENTS.class cfEmail2ecfc863240606$funcGETBCC.class cfEmail2ecfc863240606$funcGETCC.class cfEmail2ecfc863240606$funcGETFROM.class cfEmail2ecfc863240606$funcGETMIMETYPE.class cfEmail2ecfc863240606$funcGETSUBJECT.class cfEmail2ecfc863240606$funcGETTEXT.class cfEmail2ecfc863240606$funcGETTO.class cfEmail2ecfc863240606$funcPREPAREMESSAGE.class cfEmail2ecfc863240606$funcQUEUE.class cfEmail2ecfc863240606$funcSEND.class cfEmail2ecfc863240606$funcSETBCC.class cfEmail2ecfc863240606$funcSETCC.class cfEmail2ecfc863240606$funcSETFROM.class cfEmail2ecfc863240606$funcSETMIMETYPE.class cfEmail2ecfc863240606$funcSETSUBJECT.class cfEmail2ecfc863240606$funcSETTEXT.class cfEmail2ecfc863240606$funcSETTO.class Steve Brownlee http://www.fusioncube.net/ > -----Original Message----- > From: Joe Rinehart [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 4:15 PM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: Re: setters/getters - scalability issues? > > Hey Joe, > > I'm not entirely up to speed on the internal mechanics of > CFCs, but I seriously doubt a reference for each method of > each CFC instance is created. Because they're basically a > procedure, the method classes as only needed in a static > manner - no actual instances should have to be created. > > Doing things like get("foo") and set("foo") is poor OO > design, and falls into that "overoptimization = root of all > evil" category. > > -Joe ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Deploy Web Applications Quickly across the enterprise with ColdFusion MX7 & Flex 2 Free Trial http://www.adobe.com/products/coldfusion/flex2/?sdid=RVJU Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Talk/message.cfm/messageid:275043 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Talk/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
