> Any app can fail under load. I guess I think it's not > appropriate to make blanket statements about the technique. > Certainly an app using a small amount of session data, but > with a large amount of users, is, roughly, equiavalent to > a small amount of users and large session strcutures. (Ok, > maybe not equivalent, but you get the idea.) Under that > kind of thinking, my original warning about a large > structure would apply then.
You could make the same argument about locking! And yet, we make blanket statements about that all the time. (I'm being a bit facetious here, you know - please don't take this literally.) The specific applications in question failed under the amount of load that they had to support, when coded using this technique, and didn't when the code was revised to eliminate the copying of structures back and forth. These applications were relatively typical of our production work. Thus, my caveat. I think that, generally, you'd be better off simply putting the necessary locks in your code, rather than trying to "cheat" - which, after all, is all this "technique" really is: a way to avoid putting locks in your code. Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ voice: (202) 797-5496 fax: (202) 797-5444 ______________________________________________________________________ Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.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
