Brian,
There should be no need to "pass" variables when using FuseQ. One of the big differences between FuseQ and CFMODULE, is that FuseQ runs in the same memory space - i.e. variables that are available before the AddToQ call are available to the fuseactions added to the Q. The only reason you should ever need to use CFMODULE with FuseQ is if you need something to run immediately (which I don't find to be the case very often). I have been playing with FuseQ for several months now and it is really a nice add on - I just put together an entire MVC app with it a couple of weeks ago and it was so much nicer that what I had been trying to do using CFMODULE. -- Jeff -----Original Message----- From: Brian Kotek [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Sunday, May 19, 2002 9:05 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: FuseQ performance Just got through "porting" an MVC test app from using all CFMODULE's to using FuseQ. The FuseQ version runs nearly 15% faster, most likely because of the overhead reduction of losing the CFMODULE calls. I thought that was interesting...anyone else have any impressions? Also, going through the port to FuseQ, I'm already seeing spots where I still need CFMODULE, especially if you are passing attributes into the CFMODULE call. Haven't figured out yet if there's a way to pass attribute-type info into the FuseQ along with a fuseaction. Though I did see John is going to address the "content block" idea in an example, so maybe (probably?) there are other options. Playing with this stuff is fun. BTW, Attack of the Clones was pretty damn good. ;-) Brian ============ ==^================================================================ This email was sent to: [email protected] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?bUrFMa.bV0Kx9 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^================================================================
