RE: [CFCDev] MVCF at benorama.com

[Matt Liotta]

Title: MVCF at benorama.com

It is wonderful that you didn’t have any problems. However, that doesn’t really speak to whether or not there is scalability issues with the use of CFCs for models in MVC. What kind of hardware are you using to obtain what kind of load?   Matt Liotta President & CEO Montara Software, Inc. http://www.montarasoftware.com/ 888-408-0900 x901 -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Robert Bailey Sent: Monday, March 24, 2003 3:06 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [CFCDev] MVCF at benorama.com   I have not had any problems on my latest application, using Windows 2000, CFMX with updater 3, and IIS 5   But then, I have developed applications on one MX server and when moved to a production MX server it behaved differently, even when the configuration was the same. Go figure. The only problem I came across this last project is how MX does not like to play with some objects nicely, so I had to give some of the work to ASP, but played together rather nicely.     Thanks! Robert Bailey Famous for nothing -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Matt Liotta Sent: Monday, March 24, 2003 3:01 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [CFCDev] MVCF at benorama.com The testing I have conducted shows that the using CFCs as models in an MVC pattern will not scale without serious hacks. It is possible that a framework will emerge that provides these hacks, but I haven’t seen any as of yet. Please look to the archives of this list for discussion of these scalability issues.   Matt Liotta President & CEO Montara Software, Inc. http://www.montarasoftware.com/ 888-408-0900 x901 -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Davis, Eric Sent: Monday, March 24, 2003 1:55 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [CFCDev] MVCF at benorama.com   Link: <http://www.benorama.com/coldfusion/> Word ver.: <http://www.benorama.com/coldfusion/patterns/MVCF.doc> Has anyone looked really hard at this one? What are everybody's thoughts on this? I'm looking for a replacement to Fusebox 3 for MX - FBMX is too slow coming, and probably won't make much sense anyway (I'm guessing it'll be quite obfuscatory and rather difficult to implement the first five to ten times). He's put together quite a presentation, and he about has me convinced, if only I can simplify the structure a bit. I'm trying to find the right methodology for my team here to use, and they're NONE of them big methodology-users. Anyway, just haven't seen any threads about this, and wondered if you folks had anything to say on the subject. Which of course you must; you always do. ;) Thanks, ecd. -- Eric C. Davis Programmer/Analyst I Georgia Department of Transportation Office of I.T. Applications 404.463.2860.158 [EMAIL PROTECTED]