Sean, Thanks for pointing out what I already knew.
But having said that, there are things about the design of these websites that may end up becoming 1 website based on url running the one application, or I could also use the server scope to make the code available right across the board. I am aware of the trade off's about memory, the amount of memory that is being chewed is data being held in the custom tags by us, and that is my main concern, and well aware that by placing the code into the application scope it takes a certain amount of memory. But this is all the things that I am considering before starting, whether the trade off to go the way I am thinking reduces the memory overall or makes the application quicker to run that it doesn't matter an extra 10ms to hit the database again. Trade offs that I am considering. Regards Andrew Scott Technical Consultant NuSphere Pty Ltd Level 2/33 Bank Street South Melbourne, Victoria, 3205 Phone: 03 9686 0485 - Fax: 03 9699 7976 -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Sean Corfield Sent: Tuesday, 1 March 2005 4:06 PM To: CFAussie Mailing List Subject: [cfaussie] Re: CFCs calling CFCs On Tue, 1 Mar 2005 15:17:54 +1100, Andrew Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Actually no I haven't thought of anything at this stage, I am looking > at alternatives yes. But was interested in the singleton method to > replace some Custom Tags that are shared across applications, to > minimise execution time I was looking at storing these into the > Application scope, hence the reason behind Singleton as I thought it > would have to be approached in this manner somehow to share across the application. If you're looking to reduce the memory in use then switching from custom tags to CFCs in application scope will make your problem worse, not better. Also application scope is not shared across applications so you will go from zero memory footprint (custom tags) to a fixed footprint in every application which adds up on a single server. > I am looking at an approach similar to Mach-II, but it needs to fit > within the current design framework and CFC's was being considered to > leverage of the super methods etc and was thinking that it might be > cheaper execution time and memory with a cfc compared to custom tag. "super" relates to inheritance and unless you have a strict "is-a" relationship between your CFCs you shouldn't use inheritance. Furthermore, once you get into inheritance, you'll pay a performance overhead and use more more. > As to how I am going to approach this is still in the air, but I > thought OO would be a better approach to try to cut down the code for > better reuse and that is the main objective at the moment, Yes, that's true. You will eventually end up with a more maintainable system but until you've done substantial refactoring and reduction of code, you're simply going to increase you memory overhead. -- Sean A Corfield -- http://www.corfield.org/ Team Fusebox -- http://www.fusebox.org/ Breeze Me! -- http://www.corfield.org/breezeme Got Gmail? -- I have 49, yes 49, invites to give away! "If you're not annoying somebody, you're not really alive." -- Margaret Atwood --- You are currently subscribed to cfaussie as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aussie Macromedia Developers: http://lists.daemon.com.au/ --- You are currently subscribed to cfaussie as: [email protected] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aussie Macromedia Developers: http://lists.daemon.com.au/
