This is silly. If my language was misleading to anyone, I apologize. I try
to be very careful with words. I only meant to indicate, as I've said, that
request was UNLIKE client and session variables. We're both saying exactly
the same thing. I've said it was like a local variable--only available to
all files included or called in a single http request. I don't think I can
make it any clearer.
-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Bartley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2000 6:21 PM
To: Fusebox
Subject: RE: Idea?
>Chris, I'm not trying to be misleading at all. In fact, I'm trying to be
the
>opposite. If you look over all the posts I've written on this, I've clearly
>said the request scope is NOT a shared scope (which is why it doesn't need
>to be locked). I was just trying to get the point across that request is
NOT
>tied to a single user, unlike client and session.
Saying that it's not tied to a single user is the misleading part. A single
HTTP request cannot be shared by more than one user. Therefore, the request
scope is (by definition) tied to a single user.
How are you defining "tied"?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
To Unsubscribe visit
http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists&body=lists/fusebox or
send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with 'unsubscribe' in
the body.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Unsubscribe visit
http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists&body=lists/fusebox or send a
message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with 'unsubscribe' in the body.
