The official MM/Allaire line is that shared-scope variables should be locked by scope and not by name (it's in the Knowledge Base).
Yes, locking by name should be faster, if you coordinate it right - remember that locking doesn't lock anything, it merely coordinates access to the variables. In my opinion, locking by scope is for safety reasons, and it's worth it. Chris Norloff ---------- Original Message ---------------------------------- from: cf refactoring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 08:09:16 -0800 (PST) >There's something that's been buggin me: > >Is NAME LOCKING sufficient for session variables? > >A best practice in CF is to always lock session >variable access, but it's not really clear whether > 1) NAME locking is sufficient or > 2) should we always lock with SCOPE=SESSION? > >To me, the answer seems to depend on how shared memory >is managed in CF. If session scope memory is managed >as an entire block, then we have to use SCOPE=SESSION, >because different user sessions can corrupt each >other. On the other hand, if session scope memory is >managed variable by variable, then we only need to >worry that a single variable is not simultaneously >accessed by two different threads, in which case a >NAME lock would be sufficient. > >Are there any MACROMEDIA folks out there who know >enough about CFAS internals to answer this? > >===== >I-Lin Kuo >Macromedia CF5 Advanced Developer >Sun Certified Java 2 Programmer > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
