I didn't use debugging; debugging with CFC-heavy apps is death. ;) Did everything with getTickCount (yeah, yeah, yeah, CFTIMER and all that; I'm on 6.1). Good to know about the <16ms limit, though I can't say I've ever had issues with it.
When you say "load testing apps", are you talking about load testing your application that uses CFCs? Or at the very least, making HTTP requests for each page? Because that'd add a lot of overhead that wouldn't be related to inline/method differences. Of course, you're absolutely right that all that overhead makes a couple ms of execution time irrelevant. cheers, barneyb On 8/22/05, Joe Rinehart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hey Barney, > > Keep in mind that CF has a problem figuring out times of < > 16ms....I've run similar tests via load testing apps and found the > difference in performance between inline and CFC methods to not be as > big as CF debugging would lead folks to believe. > > -Joe > -- Barney Boisvert [EMAIL PROTECTED] 360.319.6145 http://www.barneyb.com/ Got Gmail? I have 50 invites. ---------------------------------------------------------- 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]
