Barney,
To answer your question:
"I'm also kind of curious. How large of applications are being mass
hosted like this, and need to have the ability to play nice with
myriad other apps (both the same code and different)? "
the company I work for builds an app that, against our recommendation,
is often installed many, many, many times (in one instance 300 times)
on one server. It is a pretty complex app but we have architected it
in such a way that the core files that are the same across all
instances are installed in one location using using a standard named
mapping. Then only the subsets of code that are unique for each
instance are "duplicated" for each install.
The app is kind of a CMS/Portal/Intranet/Knowledge Management/Document
management hybrid that can be extended fairly easily to integrate with
other applications. Written almost entirely for CFMX 6.1 with CFML
though there are some small parts in Java when the functionality was
needed.
Sure, we would love it if every customer were willing to deploy on
seperate servers (or at least with seperate CF instances) but that
generally isn't the case even when dealing with our larger customers
(those who deal in the billions of dollars). Since our app CAN work
sharing resources across many intances, even if performance becomes
degraded, the customer often will do that in order to save $$.
Bill
On 9/11/05, Barney Boisvert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You've got one thing backwards, subclasses would need to be at the
> same level or HIGHER than the class they're extending. Other than
> that, it sounds reasonable.
>
> However, there's absolutely no reason that any hosting environment
> (dedicated, shared, mass hosted, whatever) shouldn't give each
> individual website at least one mapping, so I'd say you're better off
> with a build process that'll do a substitution of that mapping at
> install time. So you're code would be say
> extends="${cfcRoot}package.cfc", or whatever, and then at install
> time, you run the build script and it subs out ${cfcRoot} with the
> appropriate value.
>
> I'm also kind of curious. How large of applications are being mass
> hosted like this, and need to have the ability to play nice with
> myriad other apps (both the same code and different)? It seems to me
> that the apps large and complex enough to really benefit from a
> massively OO backend probably aren't the kinds of apps that get
> deployed a bunch of times to shared servers.
>
> cheers,
> barneyb
>
> On 9/10/05, Nando <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Kerry's post about using a GatewayFactory got me thinking about factories in
> > general, and i wanted to float an idea out here and see what some of you
> > smarter, more experienced OO'ers think.
> >
> > One of the practical problems some of us run across in using CFC's rather
> > intensively in our distributed apps, one's we're building to sell multiple
> > times, is that mappings cannot be set on an individual application - they
> > are server wide. So to have more than one instance of an app on a server
> > puts you through some gymnastics. Either you have to search and replace the
> > mapping name in your CFC's and test each individual app carefully for any
> > errors (and carefully maintain all those variations!), or you need to put
> > them in separate server instances ... or you just can't use mappings, which
> > tends to tie you down.
> >
> > Now let's say that we design our app as Kerry suggests, so that on
> > application start, a Factory is instantiated into application scope from
> > Application.cfc or Application.cfm. All object instances in the application
> > are created by Factory (or it's composed child Factory classes if you want
> > to break the responsibilities up, as you probably should).
> >
> > Now, as long as your CFC's are in the same directory as Factory or lower,
> > the singleton instance of application.Factory should have no problem finding
> > them, instantiating them, and returning them without a mapping. Going down
> > the directory tree works, it's just going up where you run into problems.
> > The only limitation i can think of is that components that employ an
> > inheritance relationship would need to be in the same directory or the child
> > would need to be lower. Composition, no matter how the objects are in
> > relation to each other, could be handled by application.Factory (you'd pass
> > in a reference of application.Factory, actually you'd pass in "this" when
> > instantiating parent components and use Factory to instantiate the
> > children).
> >
> > Anyone see any holes or limitations one would run across down the line with
> > this approach?
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Barney Boisvert
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 360.319.6145
> http://www.barneyb.com/
>
> Got Gmail? I have 100 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]
>
>
>
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://blog.rawlinson.us
If you want Gmail - just ask.
----------------------------------------------------------
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]
