I think this has to be the developer's responsibility. How can CFAS know which CFCs can be cached and which need separate instances that die with each page request? How can it know which should be cached for the whole application and which have to be cached for a particular session. How can it know which CFC's need to work together, and which need to be isolated from each other?
These issues are at the core of object oriented programming, and if someone doesn't want to go down that route (whatever you call it) - then they necessarily will need to be content with using CFC's in a superficial, less than optimal way. And i can fully understand why someone would not want to go down that route. It's a lot of work, and you're thrown into a realm where you often don't understand much at all. It's planning, thinking ahead, making mistakes, and learning from them. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Alan Williamson Sent: Friday, March 18, 2005 2:14 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [CFCDev] Should the underlying engine not be caching CFC objects? Yes, I could cache them in SESSION/APPLICATION etc but thats overhead and placing the responsibility on me, the CFML developer. I might not even have a [session/application] scope available to me at that time. ---------------------------------------------------------- You are subscribed to cfcdev. To unsubscribe, send an email to [email protected] with the words 'unsubscribe cfcdev' as the subject of the email. CFCDev is run by CFCZone (www.cfczone.org) and supported by CFXHosting (www.cfxhosting.com). An archive of the CFCDev list is available at www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
