Hi Matt, > 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.
Yes, I was refering to CFC method vs. a UDF and custom tag. CFCs have limitations for complex inheritance hierarchies (performances, lack of super()). But anyway, if you require a very complex object model with complex inheritance hierarchies, you should not go for CFCs but directly for Java (with some CFCs wrapper/facade if required). In our case, we have been careful to have zero, one (and rarely 2) inheritance levels (with around 70 CFCs). You can very often avoid complex inheritance by using composition instead. As for the overhead associated with stateful CFCs, I am not aware of that (and it seems that Sean Corfield is not either). > 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. I am on CF-Talk (probably one of the most active technical CF list) and I don't think I've ever seen this problem mentioned. I just made a search on "stateful CFC" and "persisted CFC" and it gave no results. They might have some overhead as you said. But I'm not sure it will prevent you to build scalable sites. Benoit Hediard www.benorama.com ---------------------------------------------------------- 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).
