On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 16:28:24 -0400, Tyler Silcox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > How should you manage only calling the necessary function libraries on each > request, instead of including/referencing all of your UDF libraries on each > call?
The overhead of <cfinclude>ing a library file is very, very small (because the included file is compiled and the execution only consists of setting function references into the variables scope). I would also recommend not having a single "kitchen sink" UDF library but instead having multiple library files, each containing only related functions. > Sean, since you mentioned this above, do you have any recommendations to > accomplish only calling the necessary function libs? I don't think the overhead is worth worrying about. There is, after all, only one copy of each function in memory, no matter how many times you include it. > Does Mach-ii have any > inherent abilities for elegantly handling UDFs and what-not, or is it still > left up to the developer? Left up to the developer although the use of UDFs is probably both less frequent and more localized in a Mach II application because of the focus on OO modeling (so most parts of the program are related functions with data, i.e., objects). -- Sean A Corfield -- http://www.corfield.org/ Team Fusebox -- http://www.fusebox.org/ "If you're not annoying somebody, you're not really alive." -- Margaret Atwood ---------------------------------------------------------- You are subscribed to cfcdev. To unsubscribe, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the words 'unsubscribe cfcdev' in the message of the email. CFCDev is run by CFCZone (www.cfczone.org) and supported by Mindtool, Corporation (www.mindtool.com). An archive of the CFCDev list is available at www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
