You are correct - CF does "cache" includes and it uses a FIFO buffer that is configurable as to size in the cf administrator. CF does check to see if the file has been modified before using the cached template and that is technically a low everhead "disk access". If you have a site on a single server and dev-pre-pro setup, you can enable the "trusted cache". This will ensure that CF does NOT check the disk for mods before serving the page - further reducing the overhead. Of course in a shared hosting environment this is not the case. Still, the overhead for cfinclude is very minimal - and the benefits outwiegh it considerably.
-mk -----Original Message----- From: Brad Roberts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2002 9:47 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: What is the best variable scope? I'm no expert on how CF handles files, but when it comes to cfincludes, doesn't CF "cache" them. I mean, that 10ms is CF parsing code, NOT simply accessing the file. I'm sure accessing the first time might take a couple of ms, but after that.... > -----Original Message----- > From: Andrew Scott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2002 9:57 AM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: RE: What is the best variable scope? > > > Here is something to ponder:-) > > Although it might not be an issue to some of you, but look at it this > way. If the website is going to be a high traffic website, then Disk > access needs to be considered in the time that a page takes to run. > > The more cfincludes that a request needs, will always add to the > overhead of the time the application needs to run. If we are talking > about a website that is low then forget what I am saying, but if you > have a cfinclude that takes say 10ms to run. The multiply this by the > number of users that could potentially hit the site, you'll see that > this time can bring a servers performance to a critical level. > > Might not sound like it is a big deal, but can be when the time comes:-) > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Bud [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, 27 June 2002 12:36 PM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: Re: What is the best variable scope? > > On 6/26/02, Dave Carabetta penned: > >Without belaboring this thread, pre-MX, I don't advocate > >using shared-scope varaibles such as the application scope for these > sorts > >of variables. Period. > > Exactly. I never did see any reason to store a datasource name, or > anything that you have to actually type, as anything but a local > variable. If I have to type > > <cfset application.dsn = "mydsn"> > <cfset variables.dsn = application.dsn> > > and place a lock around it, why not just type > > <cfset variables.dsn = "mydsn"> > > ?? > -- > > Bud Schneehagen - Tropical Web Creations > > _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ > ColdFusion Solutions / eCommerce Development > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://www.twcreations.com/ > 954.721.3452 > > ______________________________________________________________________ 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
