You kids are out of control...chill please. This is turning into a whose *&(@ is bigger discussion.
Let the individual developer decide on their own. If their app takes a dump under load with single threaded sessions enabled, hopefully now they will know where to start looking for the possible culprit. Chris -----Original Message----- From: Keith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, June 14, 2002 2:45 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: RE: Application Slow Down was RE: Absolutely necessary to cflock session variables >> Well, I am not sure what you have learned in your 20+ years of >> computing, but I am guessing you don't code for multi-user >> environments that much. Wrong. I was doing internal engineering on a multi-user DBMS in 1985. I was in charge of the port to OS/2 version 1. (Highly successful venture by the way--NOT) If you're going to speculate about someone, start by making up a name. Then we will all feel unfettered and able to appreciate your soaring imagination. ----- Original Message ----- From: "James Ang" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, June 14, 2002 4:18 PM Subject: RE: RE: Application Slow Down was RE: Absolutely necessary to cflock session variables > "Try this formula: simple statement + irrelevent speculation = random > idiocy" > > Ouch! :) > > I am assuming: > > Simple Statement == "Single Thread" the server > Irrelevant Speculation == "CFLOCK is mucho importante!" > Random Idiocy == James' dumbo statements > > Well, I am not sure what you have learned in your 20+ years of > computing, but I am guessing you don't code for multi-user environments > that much. I am sure you have heard of the need for semaphores (aka > mutex() et al) for multiple operations that need to be atomic. Imagine > you have a set of shared data that needs to be modified all at the same > time due to interdependency (interdependent but not derived from each > other). Without CFLOCK/semaphore/mutex(), you cannot guarrantee > consistency. If you see how a typical enterprise level RDBMS is > designed, you would know that mutex()/semaphores are used all over to > prevent collisions. > > I am not trying to say that I am superior compared to you. I am very > certain that you know more than I do with respect to many things in > computing. I am just pointing out stuff that you obviously do not > understand. Web applications by definition are supposed to be designed > for load. :) The single thread everything is kinda wrong due to > scalability issues as Dave Watts have pointed out numerous times. > > I started coding back in college in 1994/95 (BASIC in 1984 does not > count :P). Play algorithms and stuff. The fun stuff started in 1997 when > I played with supercomputers and parallel algorithms. That's where I > appreciate the need for serial access to shared and interdependent > resources. Heck, that was also the year I was introduced to CFML. So, > all in all, I have only 7 years of experience and compared to your two++ > decades, 'tis nothing. :) > > When Simple == Elegant == Robust, that is a win-win-win. But if Simple > == Elegant == Craps Out Really Badly Under Load, that is lose-lose-lose. > I would rather have Robust+Scalable than simple but stupid. > > And, no, I am not offended by your statements. And I hope I have not > offended you with mine. I just want the folks here in this list to > appreciate the often underused, and yes, difficult to understand, > CFLOCK. I am just very surprised that our resident jedimaster did not > jump on this argument. :P > > ---------------------------- > James Ang > Senior Programmer > MedSeek, Inc. > [EMAIL PROTECTED] ______________________________________________________________________ Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in ColdFusion and related topics. http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.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
