> We are not in production yet and we have just made some load testing for > the moment. > But, I don't see why we would have scalability problems directly linked to > the choice of CFCs-as-models (except that it might consume more RAM than > before). > We all know what the problems with assumptions are. Why don't you load test your application and report on what percentage of total page serving time is consumed by CFCs on average for a page request.
> It is true that I was not sure about this ... until the new macromedia.com > was launched. It is the best proof of scalability of CFMX (and CFCs). > Figures show that CFCs don't add so much overhead compared to cfinclude or > cfmodule. > Which figures do you refer to? The published information from Macromedia only compares the time is takes to call a CFC method vs. a UDF and custom tag. Unfortunately, that data doesn't appear to take into account complex inheritance hierarchies or any overhead associated with persisted CFCs. More than one person however has posted data to public mailing lists showing the overhead associated with the CFC use cases I mentioned. It is not that hard to see; try it for yourself. -Matt ---------------------------------------------------------- You are subscribed to cfcdev. To unsubscribe, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word 'unsubscribe cfcdev' in the message of the email. CFCDev is run by CFCZone (www.cfczone.org) and supported by Mindtool, Corporation (www.mindtool.com).
