At this point I know we're veering into theoretical territory, and I still would say that the difference wouldn't be extreme. But I'd argue that parsing the metadata for 10,000 cfproperty declarations to determine how to handle the method calls at runtime will still be slower, even given the fact that the metadata itself is cached per class instance.
As Sean points out, counting milliseconds at this level is probably pointless given the other far more likely bottlenecks in a CF application. And speed is certainly not my reason for prefering explicit methods (as everyone probably saw heh). On Sun, Feb 1, 2009 at 2:56 PM, Peter Bell <[email protected]> wrote: > I've been having troubles posting to the list (mess up my end with incoming > and outgoing servers for different accounts), but I'm not at all sure this > is true. > Imagine you are returning a collection of users to display on the page - > let's say 100 users. Now let's assume that each user has LOTS of getters and > setters and that you've made a decision to provide them as a rich user API > to hide any implementation details (so you have a User.getBillingPhone() > rather than a User.getBillingAddress.getPhone()). Lets say there are 50 > properties, which gives us 100 getters and setters. So, with oMM(), we have > to create 100 objects and then use oMM() to access/mutate properties. > Without it, in Adobe ColdFusion we're gonna have to create 10,000 objects as > each method is compiled into its own little object. I gotta believe that > there is at least a chance that the performance penalty of creating an > additional 9,900 objects could in some circumstances outweigh the extra > processing time for the dynamic evaluation of the getters and setters. > > Best Wishes, > Peter > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CFCDev" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cfcdev?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
