Brian, I use <cfmodule> if I want an immediate execution of code. But since all fuseactions in the fuseQ are in the same http scope, you don't need to pass variables like you do with <cfmodule>. Or am I missing your point? If so, I have a long list of perfectly good reasons and only a few of them involve copious amounts of alcohol.
-----Original Message----- From: Brian Kotek [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Sunday, May 19, 2002 10:05 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 ==^================================================================
