Steve I've seen that happen (to other ppl, thankfully)... ... any clue how/why it happens?
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 3:52 PM, Steve Onnis <st...@cfcentral.com.au> wrote: > > Check for zero byte files in the mail spool. CFMAIL seems to get stuck if > there are files with nothing in them in the spool directory > > -----Original Message----- > From: cfaussie@googlegroups.com [mailto:cfaus...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf > Of Claude Raiola > Sent: Monday, 12 January 2009 4:50 PM > To: cfaussie@googlegroups.com > Subject: [cfaussie] CF5 Cfmail locking up > > > My client is running CF5 (yes I know upgrade is needed) and since 1-1-09 the > cfmail server has been locking up > > Their application has many many functions that generate email notifications > to nominated email addresses. > The scripts run as normal without crashing however the email are not > received by the recipients often the recipients are other staff in the same > office. > > When the all the CF services are restarted on the server all the mail that > have been processed by cfmail yet not received is then received all at once, > staff receiving 5-10 emails that they were expecting to have received during > the previous several hours all at once. > > Note that all I do to have the emails sent ti re start the cf services on > the server I do not reboot the entire server and exchange server is running > and sending receiving emails without an issue. > > Does CF5 admin have a activity error log I can view to try and determine > what is causing the emails to lock up as described above. > > > > Regards > > Claude Raiola > B.Econ (Acc), B.Hot.Mngt. > > Websites: > www.AustralianAccommodation.com > www.SAMARIS.NET > www.WebSiteSolutions.com.au > Mobile: 0414 228 948 > > -----Original Message----- > From: cfaussie@googlegroups.com [mailto:cfaus...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf > Of Barry Beattie > Sent: Monday, 12 January 2009 11:29 AM > To: cfaussie@googlegroups.com > Subject: [cfaussie] Re: Using stored procedure exclusively to control > database access > > > I know ppl sometimes use databases for just basic data storage but > business logic in a database is a very valid process, especially if > inserts, updates and deletes involve triggers of related data. > > having said that, it's something I don't need to do all that often, > and usually reserve for specialist uses. One problem is that (esp with > triggers) the logic is somewhat hidden. > > but to be honest, the process should be abstracted anyway. something > should "doSomething(data)" and how it's implemented shouldn't be cared > by the calling code. Whether it's descrete SQL, a sproc or writing to > a file. > > what that means is that you really need a data access layer and get > away with SQL littered all through your code. _ALL_ SQL should be a > specific layer of your code and everything calls what they need. > > : KISS - keep it simple > : DRY - don't repeat yourself (ie: write code once and call it many times) > two things to follow to make your life easier > > just my 2c. > barry.b > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 11:19 AM, felixt <cem...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> It has been suggested by someone at work that we should only allow >> access to database via stored procedures. >> >> This was proposed to fix the current situation where we have hundreds >> of similar SQL statements scattered >> around the system. For example if the business logic has changed in >> one place that affects a table, one needs to do a keyword search on >> all files to make sure all the related files are updated. >> >> I am aware of the benefits of going the stored procs way, like: >> 1. Centralized place for logic >> 2. Faster execution >> 3. It's very unlikely that we will go with different database system >> other than MSSQL so portability is not an issue for us. >> >> But I feel a bit uneasy about this, I don't feel business logic should >> be in the database also I think debugging stored procedure will be >> more difficult (adding one more place to check). >> But this is just my feel, I might be wrong. >> >> Any thoughts, is this a normal/recommended practice? Also what are the >> best practices that you guys use to combat this scattered SQL >> statements? >> I thought of using CFCs (gateways and/or DAOs) should be sufficient: >> CFM -> CFC -> query >> rather than: >> CFM -> CFC -> stored proc >> >> Cheers, >> >> Felix >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "cfaussie" group. To post to this group, send email to cfaussie@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to cfaussie+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cfaussie?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
