On Tue, 1 Mar 2005 15:54:12 +1100, Andrew Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Scott, > > Mach-II would work if the for the front end to the website, but not for our > backend solution no, that's why when I looked at Mach-II awhile ago I gave > up trying to fit it into the framework, and yeah it's a complicated business > logic that seems to not suit Mach-II at all.
Mach-II isn't meant to look after business logic, its a framework that allows your UI to talk to the business logic in a nice passive way...ie i'd classify it maybe as your "Presenter" .. it does have hooks into the view sadly, but thats not really a bad thing. Provided you use your Mach-II Listeners / Plugins / Filters correctly you can have a complex backend thats not even coldfusion and still be able to use Mach-ii (of course you need to make some CFC Facades into your given technology if its not CF but again these facades are seperate to Mach-ii aswell)... heh i preech Mach-II thickly ... > But I was thinking of leveraging some of the ideas of Mach-II to begin > suiting the needs, but it also needs to be accessible via websrvices as > well. > > What is Tartan? Its a framework, google: Tartan Coldfusion it should be the first line item in the results.... GOOOGLE IS LUV....hehe. > > 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 Scott Barnes > Sent: Tuesday, 1 March 2005 3:48 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: > > Scott, > > > > [Snip] > > Andrew it all sounds like your pinning your hopes on Singletons vs > > refactoring / revising whats stored in session scope. Once you narrow > > that down, how you store the excess is another process unto itself. ( > > I am assuming you haven't done the first part.. if you have, accept my > > apologies). > > > > 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. > > Ahh my bad - my interpretation was different to what you've described. > > > 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. > > hmm...without getting bogged down into framework conventions.. but couldn't > you cherry pick Mach-II? to suite... in that Mach-II can be passive approach > to an existing framework? or is your existing framework heavily intertwined > with your business layer.... > > I only ask in that if you have a situation where you have to start dividing > up your apps into portions (view / model in basic terms) Mach-II may still > suite.... especially if you do want to make use of Singeltons as you can > make up little rules like "A Listener knows which scope a singleton lives on > but the rest of the managers/model doesn't" thus a listener will pass that > singleton byRef downstream... > > Without knowing about your framework its hard to throw in our tidbits that > may help you onto the path of Singleton enlightenment.. where all colours > are true and unicorns roam free...ahh...preeetttyyy.... > > > 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, as I have 3 > > websites that share modules and maintaining them at the moment is a > > total nightmare under the way it has been currently designed. > > I'd ram Mach-II down the brainstrust throat until they get so sick of me and > go "alright damn it..take the bloody framework but ffs..leave me alone about > it..." - learn from kids they tend to ware parents down well... heh... but > i'm a pro-Mach-II convert and find it a nice easy simple approach to web > apps that use HTML frontends... > > Have you looked at the other frameworkds like Tartan ? any use? > > > So although at the moment that have 3 separate databases, but share > > nearly 98% code. As well as many sections of the module share code across > modules. > > So you can maybe guess where I am headed here. > > Yerp, gets back to my point once upon a time (well i stole it but thats > between you and me..oops..and the list) that just because CONTEXA you use > DBX doesn't mean you'll use DBX in CONTEXTB... thus a configBO singelton > concept could apply.....newho not helping am i. > > > > > 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 Scott > > Barnes > > Sent: Tuesday, 1 March 2005 2:57 PM > > To: CFAussie Mailing List > > Subject: [cfaussie] Re: CFCs calling CFCs > > > > On Tue, 1 Mar 2005 13:00:03 +1100, Andrew Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Mark, > > > > > > > [snip] > > > > > > > > We have applications that are chewing through too much memory, and I > > > need to reduce this quickly and find a solution that will work. > > > > > > Here is the problem I have 80 users on this system, and every time > > > they log in and logout they are creating another session, multiply > > > the number of users by 500k by 100 logins an it starts adding up. > > > > > > My solution is to start reducing things that don't need to be held > > > in memory, but I would like to know how much memory certain > > > variables are taking up if this is at all possible. > > > > Cool..hmm.. i guess this is where you need to think about whats needed > > in memory, for my mind if any data falls into these two categories, > > then yes they belong in session scope - otherwise get em out - imho. > > > > - Temporary data (ie scarts for basic example) > > - Common Data (used on nearly every page in/out) > > > > I say this as its a fine balance between saving "expensive calls" to a > > Database / XML file then it is to hold stuff in memory that may be > > more expensive (simply due to volume). Also keep basic information, a > > classic basic example would be a simple shopping cart: > > > > Now you add an item to your basket and there is various metadata that > > you need to keep track of about that item mostly snapshot of the items > > important information. Most would simply lock that up in a big ol > > Struct and unpack it it at checkout.. but in reality once you add it > > to a cart? all you really need is some "summary" level variables and a > > "key" that refers to the extended information. > > > > This extended information could be stored in: > > > > - XML file (probably not a good idea as it means HDD annoyances) > > - Database (typically not that bad.. but could also be expensive) > > - Other means ( you could have a compression system in place on the > > data or crap like that maybe). > > > > But i think that would get into collections vs entities argument(s) > > hehehehehe... > > > > > I don't like using session either, as it is very non cluster aware > > > unless using sticky sessions. But that defeats the purpose of off > > > loading in a cluster in my eyes. But that is another story. > > > > > > All I am asking, is there a way to see how much memory a variable is > > > taking up. > > > > Nothing but good ol getTicker() heheheh... > > > > > And I am already aware of the SessionEnd and SessionStart of CF7.0, > > > but its not what I am asking. > > > > DONT GO THERE.. lol - I'd even say that as until I get CF7.0 i too > > have to pretend those damn purty events don't exist... > > > > Andrew it all sounds like your pinning your hopes on Singletons vs > > refactoring / revising whats stored in session scope. Once you narrow > > that down, how you store the excess is another process unto itself. ( > > I am assuming you haven't done the first part.. if you have, accept my > > apologies). > > > > -- > > Regards, > > Scott Barnes > > http://www.mossyblog.com > > > > --- > > 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/ > > > > -- > Regards, > Scott Barnes > http://www.mossyblog.com > > --- > 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/ > -- Regards, Scott Barnes http://www.mossyblog.com --- 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/
