> FWIW, I turn off client scope completely on every single server I > build. I don't like the idea of my data being forced on the user as a > cookie in every request nor requiring database access on every request > (yes, I know it can be cached / tuned etc). Besides, client data is > slow and very limited in terms of size (both cookies and the client > database schema have a fixed upper limit on the size of data).
Recently, I spent some time porting a fairly complex app from ColdFusion 5 to ColdFusion MX 6.1. The app was actually written for ColdFusion 4. The app used the client scope, partially to skirt locking issues. Since ColdFusion MX doesn't have these issues, I figured I'd take the time to refactor the app to use the session scope. Afterwards, I performance tested both versions of the app on the same web server running against the same SQL Server. The tests were by no means exhaustive. I recorded a few user sessions and replayed them, simulating a fairly heavy load. Surprisingly, I found that both apps behaved *exactly* the same. The numbers were so close I thought I had made a mistake and was testing the same app over and over. Anyway, this information is more anecdotal than anything. In the end I decided not to go through with the change because 1) don't fix what's not broken and 2) there were actually a few drawbacks to using the session scope. For instance, using the client scope, a user's session will never get timed out on them. Ben Rogers http://www.c4.net v.508.240.0051 f.508.240.0057 ---------------------------------------------------------- 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). CFCDev is supported by New Atlanta, makers of BlueDragon http://www.newatlanta.com/products/bluedragon/index.cfm An archive of the CFCDev list is available at www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
