Mr. Watts, I've never seen you issue such an insulting reply. You yourself have stated that you have no "real" information to back up your claims.
Sorry that I disagree with you, but I don't care to have my professionalism questioned. Shame on you. [EMAIL PROTECTED] ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dave Watts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 12:17 PM Subject: RE: UDF question > > You're talking about developers who don't use CFLOCK > > because they are ignorant of CF locking issues. I'm > > sure we all agree that this is a bad thing, but it's > > not exactly relevent to the original discussion. > > > > You can write perfectly "solid" applications that do > > not lock session variable access. Simply enable the > > Single Threaded Sessions option in the CF Administrator. > > Again, we may disagree about "solidity" here. It's been my experience that > applications using this setting may have to be rewritten to handle > significant load. If you asked the people who purchased the applications > written this way, who then find out that they need to have changes made on > nearly every page - expensive at $250/hr - they'd probably object to using > the word "solid", unless they also worked in the words "steaming" and "pile" > as well. > > > That's been my point from the beginning. It's not helpful > > to compare this with "sloppy" or incompetent coding. > > One attribute of sloppy/incompetent coding is to avoid problem resolutions > within the code itself. That's why we have exception handlers, for example. > You could argue that, in CF, we have the site-wide error handler so we don't > need exception handlers, but I'd argue that the programmer who appropriately > uses exception handlers writes better (more competent, less sloppy) code > than the one who doesn't. A non-sloppy, competent programmer will attempt to > ensure that his program will perform optimally in whatever situation it is > run - it'll fail gracefully if some other guy doesn't configure it > correctly, or call it with the correct attributes, or whatever. > > This falls within the same category. If you write an application which > relies on my configuring a server-wide performance setting, which may very > well negatively affect how all the other apps on that server will run, and > you write it this way in order to avoid adding a few lines of code here and > there, in my book that's definitely sloppy, and not necessarily competent. > > Now, if you write code which you know will always be under your direct > control, and you know that you can configure the server any way you like, > and you know that the code won't have to support significant number of > users, then there's nothing wrong with omitting your locks and using that > setting. Most developers don't have those luxuries, though. > > Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software > http://www.figleaf.com/ > voice: (202) 797-5496 > fax: (202) 797-5444 > > ______________________________________________________________________ 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
