After think on this more and looking at all the cflocks in Reactor, I think named locks are more appropriate. I've updated the core files and now can create the factory and a gateway in Railo 2. I'd still like ideas and comments, as this may be something that should get committed in Reactor.
Terry Terry L Schmitt/TMG/[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 06/15/2007 12:12 PM Please respond to [email protected] To [email protected] cc Subject [Reactor for CF] Railo 2.0, Reactor, and cflock problems I'm evaluating Railo 2.0 and Reactor. Railo blows up when it encounters a cflock tag that has no name or scope attribute, as one or the other appears to required in Railo, but not CF7. There are a number of places that unidentified locks are used in Reactor. I normally name or scope a lock, but I'm wondering if I were to suggest using an identifier for all cflocks in Reactor, what the best route to go would be? I'm thinking application scope may be best, but hope that someone on the list is more familiar with the guts of Reactor and can offer some insight. Thanks, Terry Schmitt -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Reactor for ColdFusion Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Archives at: http://www.mail-archive.com/reactor%40doughughes.net/ -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Reactor for ColdFusion Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Archives at: http://www.mail-archive.com/reactor%40doughughes.net/ -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
