Re: [KCFusion] CF5 Eval
I have n't had a chance yet to look at version 5 but it will be useful to know what you think of it. Bryan LaPlante wrote: Is anyone else in our group evaluating or currently using CF 5? I have got some examples I would like to share with you about getting tons of user defined functions to run in memory instead of having to load them at the top of ever page. It is kind of the same effect you would get from caching a query except it's a function instead. Anyway before I go into it. Anybody? Bryan LaPlante 816-347-8220 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.netwebapps.com Web Development __ The KCFusion.org list and website is hosted by Humankind Systems, Inc. List Archives http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-list@kcfusion.org Questions, Comments or Glowing Praise.. mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Subscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] __ The KCFusion.org list and website is hosted by Humankind Systems, Inc. List Archives http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-list@kcfusion.org Questions, Comments or Glowing Praise.. mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Subscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [KCFusion] CF5 Eval
We are planning an upgrade next week as soon as we get the upgrade delivered. I would be glad to be of assistance if you still need it by then. Kory Bakken -Original Message- From: Bryan LaPlante [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2001 1:18 AM To: [KCFusion List] (E-mail) Subject: [KCFusion] CF5 Eval Is anyone else in our group evaluating or currently using CF 5? I have got some examples I would like to share with you about getting tons of user defined functions to run in memory instead of having to load them at the top of ever page. It is kind of the same effect you would get from caching a query except it's a function instead. Anyway before I go into it. Anybody? Bryan LaPlante 816-347-8220 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.netwebapps.com Web Development __ The KCFusion.org list and website is hosted by Humankind Systems, Inc. List Archives http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-list@kcfusion.org Questions, Comments or Glowing Praise.. mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Subscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] __ The KCFusion.org list and website is hosted by Humankind Systems, Inc. List Archives http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-list@kcfusion.org Questions, Comments or Glowing Praise.. mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Subscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [KCFusion] CF5 Eval
The notion of loading a group of functions using cfinclude at the top of ever template that requires access to said functions, well I am thinking it's too heavy. go download http://www.netwebapps.com/projects/cflp.zip this zip file while I go get my coffee and I will explain what I have done to allow you to drop these libraries into you custom tags folder and only have to load them once pre session,application,request or server occurrence, which ever you choose. Bryan, Neat idea, but do you really think cfincluding them, perhaps in the Application.cfm page, would be that heavy? If you turn on Template Caching in the CF admin, all templates will be cached in RAM, and I would think that would serve the same purpose and be a bit simpler to implement. I'd be interested in seeing some performance stats on both methods. We use a boatload of functions in our ASP projects, and including them at the top of the page has never seemed like much overhead. Heck, we've got one ASP app running at http://support.answertrack.com/ that has about 100 files included on the main processing page, probably 60-70k total weight (written in Fusebox-style), and that dang thing has faster page views than any of our CF stuff. If you mouseover the lower-right-hand corner of the AnswerTrack display window on that site, you'll see the total processing time in milliseconds of the page. -Ron __ The KCFusion.org list and website is hosted by Humankind Systems, Inc. List Archives http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-list@kcfusion.org Questions, Comments or Glowing Praise.. mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Subscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [KCFusion] CF5 Eval
Hmm... are you sure the time from the first page load wasn't from p-coding the pages? What does Debug output have to say about the time spent in each custom tag (as opposed to the startup, parsing, and shutdown time)? Daryl - Original Message - From: Bryan LaPlante [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2001 12:13 PM Subject: Re: [KCFusion] CF5 Eval Ok loading 126 functions in 4 libraries with the custom tags in the application.cfm file. CF_STRLIB SCOPE=session CF_Datamanipulation SCOPE=session CF_MATHLIB SCOPE=session CF_SecurityLib SCOPE=session first page load acts like a cfinclude since the whole custom tag has to run: 1593 milliseconds Successive page loads do not run the whole custom tag since the functions exist in session var's. 40 milliseconds - Original Message - From: Ron Hornbaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2001 11:51 AM Subject: RE: [KCFusion] CF5 Eval | The notion of loading a group of functions using cfinclude at the top of | ever template that requires access to said functions, well I am thinking | it's too heavy. go download http://www.netwebapps.com/projects/cflp.zip | this | zip file while I go get my coffee and I will explain what I have done to | allow you to drop these libraries into you custom tags folder and only | have | to load them once pre session,application,request or server occurrence, | which ever you choose. | | Bryan, | | Neat idea, but do you really think cfincluding them, perhaps in the | Application.cfm page, would be that heavy? If you turn on Template Caching | in the CF admin, all templates will be cached in RAM, and I would think | that would serve the same purpose and be a bit simpler to implement. I'd | be interested in seeing some performance stats on both methods. | | We use a boatload of functions in our ASP projects, and including them at | the top of the page has never seemed like much overhead. Heck, we've got | one ASP app running at http://support.answertrack.com/ that has about 100 | files included on the main processing page, probably 60-70k total weight | (written in Fusebox-style), and that dang thing has faster page views than | any of our CF stuff. If you mouseover the lower-right-hand corner of the | AnswerTrack display window on that site, you'll see the total processing | time in milliseconds of the page. | | -Ron | | | | | __ | The KCFusion.org list and website is hosted by Humankind Systems, Inc. | List Archives http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-list@kcfusion.org | Questions, Comments or Glowing Praise.. mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | To Subscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | To Unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | | __ The KCFusion.org list and website is hosted by Humankind Systems, Inc. List Archives http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-list@kcfusion.org Questions, Comments or Glowing Praise.. mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Subscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] __ The KCFusion.org list and website is hosted by Humankind Systems, Inc. List Archives http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-list@kcfusion.org Questions, Comments or Glowing Praise.. mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Subscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [KCFusion] CF5 Eval
Custom tags have very little innate overhead; most of the experience I've had with custom tags running slowly involves the custom tag doing some sort of heavy lifting-- which should be minimized within CF. i.e. CF_BubbleSort isn't slow because it's a custom tag, it's slow because you're doing a bubble sort in an interpreted language like CF. Custom tags calls have very little additional overhead vs. cfincludes. Daryl - Original Message - From: Ron Hornbaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2001 12:23 PM Subject: RE: [KCFusion] CF5 Eval Ok loading 126 functions in 4 libraries with the custom tags in the application.cfm file. CF_STRLIB SCOPE=session CF_Datamanipulation SCOPE=session CF_MATHLIB SCOPE=session CF_SecurityLib SCOPE=session first page load acts like a cfinclude since the whole custom tag has to run: 1593 milliseconds I wouldn't say custom tags perform like cfincludes. I believe that with template caching turned on, a cfincludes will be just as fast as if the code were local to that page... perhaps faster, since CF will cache the entire contents in server RAM. Custom tags and cfmodules are notoriously slow. I would definitely recommend not using the Session scope for those things, since they'll be duplicated in RAM for each user on the site, and each user will experience the 1.5 sec lag on first load. Application or Server scope would be much nicer to server RAM. Successive page loads do not run the whole custom tag since the functions exist in session var's. 40 milliseconds Let's see a stat where they're purely cfincluded; let me know when you've got the code done, and I'll turn on template caching on the server (assuming you're testing this on our server). The big benefit to doing it your way, imo, is that the libraries can be stored in one place on the server, and be available to all sites, vs. cfincludes which would need a mapping to have the same commonality. As long as using them is no more complicated because of their tag scope, it seems like a good way to go. -Ron __ The KCFusion.org list and website is hosted by Humankind Systems, Inc. List Archives http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-list@kcfusion.org Questions, Comments or Glowing Praise.. mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Subscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] __ The KCFusion.org list and website is hosted by Humankind Systems, Inc. List Archives http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-list@kcfusion.org Questions, Comments or Glowing Praise.. mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Subscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
