> Mapping from a relational representation to an object representation is
> one example of overhead associated with persisting CFCs. However, I was
> referring to the generic needs to getting instance data from one source
> be it a table or a file and then setting the needed variables in the
> CFC. Certainly, doing this with some generic code seems to be the
> slowest option, but even doing it at all seems to add quite a bit of
> overhead.
There seems to be a big difference using a value object ( passing a struct
actually) v's setters
on a test cfc (very quickly assembled) called like
bysetters : obj.SetValueA("a");
bystruct : obj.SetbyStruct(struct)
set values by
bysetters: 5898
bystruct: 1272
using the same cfc and not including createObject
Interestingly if I use the setters in the SetbyStruct() method I get this
results
bysetters: 5197 <!--- setting each by setxxx
bystruct1: 1983 <!--- like this.a = StructFind(Arguments.S,"a")
bystruct2: 1452 <!--- like setXXX(StructFind(Arguments.S,"a"))
Would others concur with that? This might have been discussed b4, I missed
it.
WG
----------------------------------------------------------
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).
