On Thursday, Aug 14, 2003, at 15:59 US/Pacific, Brad Howerter wrote:
Oh, now that I've sent that, I think I realize what you were asking. Sorry
about that. You are asking, "why reinstatiate it?", right? The answer is,
I can't avoid it if it is being used as a service.
The rest of my email below explains what I'm trying to do, please ignore the
joke at the beginning... I thought you had just misread my previous email.
-----Original Message----- From: Brad Howerter Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2003 4:56 PM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: RE: [CFCDev] Caching a CFC
I wouldn't reinitialize it. That's what I'm trying to avoid. I said I'd
reinstantiate it, which is a different word, although they make look similar
to a fast reader... :-)
I'm trying to replace the recently instantiated object with an older cached
version (one that has been initialized).
My real hope is that I can then avoid having to write a stateless CFC to
manage cached CFC's for Flash.
-----Original Message----- From: Sean A Corfield [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2003 4:45 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [CFCDev] Caching a CFC
But if you have a version in cache, why reinitialize it anyway? You've already initialized it once. I don't understand what you're trying to do...
On Thursday, Aug 14, 2003, at 15:19 US/Pacific, Brad Howerter wrote:I'd instantiate it anyway, yes, but I wouldn't have to reinitialize it.
Pretend that part of the '...' below is a method to initialize the
object
and it takes a long time to run.
And that's why I want it to replace itself with an old instance of itself, too, so it doesn't have to be reinitialized.
----------------------------------------------------------
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).
