CFAnywhere -- One step backward.
I earlier reported that I was successful getting CFAnywhere running entirely from CD -- this is still true! But it has been pointed out to me, by Steve Duys, that the McKoi db may lack some basic features that you would likely need to run youron CD or on the Desktop.These are: -- a rather unusual method to get auto-numbering -- inability to create indexes This was an oversight by me and I apologize if it has caused you any wasted effort. We (Steve and I) are currently investigating another db, HSQLDB, that may be a better fit for your app -- while still meeting the other objectives of CFAnywhere. I have updated the CFAnywhere docs at: http://67.124.145.42:9090/BlueDragon_webapp_61/CFAnywhereDocs/ CFAnywhere.html to note the problem. I wanted to post something here (CF-Talk BlueDragon lists) to alert you to the issue, and perhaps, save you some time and frustration. You can still go through the CFAnywhere docs to see the steps for a generic app.But you will, likely,find that the McKoi component is not appropriate for *your* app. I have some time this week end, and I hope to have an alternative solution soon. Dick [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
OT How to prevent someone changing my home page
( Sorry for the Off Topic post, but you're the guys who will know what I'm looking for ) There's a spyware app or trojan or something changing the home page on my browser all the time and it's giving me a lot of heartburn.Every time I delete the app that changes it, and all references to it in the registry, it finds its way back again. I'll track it down eventually but in the mean time, is there a way to disable the changing of the home page on IE, so while I might not get rid of this damn application, at least it can't keep on altering my home page? (My home page is set to the home page of my intranet, which has a whole screen full of my oft-used links) Cheers Mike Kear AFP Webworks Windsor, NSW, Australia http://afpwebworks.com [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
OT How to prevent someone changing my home page
( Sorry for the Off Topic post, but you're the guys who will know what I'm looking for ) There's a spyware app or trojan or something changing the home page on my browser all the time and it's giving me a lot of heartburn.Every time I delete the app that changes it, and all references to it in the registry, it finds its way back again. I'll track it down eventually but in the mean time, is there a way to disable the changing of the home page on IE, so while I might not get rid of this damn application, at least it can't keep on altering my home page? (My home page is set to the home page of my intranet, which has a whole screen full of my oft-used links) Cheers Mike Kear AFP Webworks Windsor, NSW, Australia http://afpwebworks.com [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
Re: OT How to prevent someone changing my home page
Mike Kear wrote: There's a spyware app or trojan or something changing the home page on my browser all the time and it's giving me a lot of heartburn.Every time I delete the app that changes it, and all references to it in the registry, it finds its way back again. I'll track it down eventually but in the mean time, is there a way to disable the changing of the home page on IE, so while I might not get rid of this damn application, at least it can't keep on altering my home page? You could try using SpyBot SD, a pretty good anti-spyware thingie. http://www.safer-networking.de/ AFAIK it has an option to force your startpage to a certain URL, hope it works for you. Gerry. [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
Re: OT How to prevent someone changing my home page
I suggest running spybot-search and destroy - and increasing the security level of IE. == Our Anti-spam solution works!! http://www.clickdoug.com/mailfilter.cfm For hosting solutions http://www.clickdoug.com http://www.forta.com/cf/isp/isp.cfm?isp_id=1069 == - Original Message - From: Mike Kear To: CF-Talk Sent: Saturday, May 29, 2004 10:42 AM Subject: OT How to prevent someone changing my home page ( Sorry for the Off Topic post, but you're the guys who will know what I'm looking for ) There's a spyware app or trojan or something changing the home page on my browser all the time and it's giving me a lot of heartburn.Every time I delete the app that changes it, and all references to it in the registry, it finds its way back again. I'll track it down eventually but in the mean time, is there a way to disable the changing of the home page on IE, so while I might not get rid of this damn application, at least it can't keep on altering my home page? (My home page is set to the home page of my intranet, which has a whole screen full of my oft-used links) Cheers Mike Kear AFP Webworks Windsor, NSW, Australia http://afpwebworks.com [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
Re: OT How to prevent someone changing my home page
I definatly second Spybot SD.The new version (1.3) seems to be a lot more effictive at blocking such things.fixmy (dot) net is another place you can obtain it along with more spyware info.. -mike -Original Message- From: Gerry Demaret [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sat, 29 May 2004 17:56:09 +0200 Subject: Re: OT How to prevent someone changing my home page Mike Kear wrote: There's a spyware app or trojan or something changing the home page on my browser all the time and it's giving me a lot of heartburn.Every time I delete the app that changes it, and all references to it in the registry, it finds its way back again. I'll track it down eventually but in the mean time, is there a way to disable the changing of the home page on IE, so while I might not get rid of this damn application, at least it can't keep on altering my home page? You could try using SpyBot SD, a pretty good anti-spyware thingie. http://www.safer-networking.de/ AFAIK it has an option to force your startpage to a certain URL, hope it works for you. Gerry. [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
RE: OT How to prevent someone changing my home page
The online tests at www.pcpitstop.com http://www.pcpitstop.com/may find some of the simpler security holes for you: they'll automatically (if you choose) set IE and Outlook to more secure settings.It's not a really spyware/virus scanner (although they do offer an online virus scanner) but rather a general system health check. Well worth running every once in a while or after you've rebuilt. Jim Davis _ From: Doug White [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, May 29, 2004 12:37 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: OT How to prevent someone changing my home page I suggest running spybot-search and destroy - and increasing the security level of IE. [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
the ever popular cflock best practice revisited
Hi, I've inherited an app that does not lock session variables.The app runs under CF5.0. Have read cflock best practice for CF5.0. Here are a few questions: (A) CFLOCK 1) heard that cf5 server and cfmx server handles cflock differently, so, would cflock best pratice for cf5 applicable to cfmx if one day the app upgraded to cfmx? 2) what about this notion of the NAME attribute, that is, a different lock name would differentiate data/value inside a lock (be it read and write when applicable), the analog of gym's lock room. No? with a SAME lock NAME, cf server (5.0/prior and cfmx) would treat each request as students line up to try that SAME lock with each one having a key/request in his/her hand? 3) given the fact that SCOPE and NAME attributes are mutually exclusive, use one of them would suffice, so, the question is when to use SCOPE and when to use NAME (data integriy number one task, less memory usage second for either preCFMX or CFMX)? (B) Single Threaded Sessions (CF Admin) Could we construe that Single Threaded Sessions mechanism is a way that MM designed to overcome the lousy coding of not locking session variables? By that, I mean, so, instead of going through tons of code modification, just apply the Single Threaded Sessions to let CF server to handle the locks for data integrity.How well does Single Threaded Sessions does this job? Thank you. [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
RE: OT How to prevent someone changing my home page
I lied - it appears they have begun offering an online spyware/adware checker at pcpitstop.com Jim Davis _ From: Jim Davis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, May 29, 2004 1:06 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: OT How to prevent someone changing my home page The online tests at www.pcpitstop.com http://www.pcpitstop.com/may find some of the simpler security holes for you: they'll automatically (if you choose) set IE and Outlook to more secure settings.It's not a really spyware/virus scanner (although they do offer an online virus scanner) but rather a general system health check. Well worth running every once in a while or after you've rebuilt. Jim Davis [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
Re: OT How to prevent someone changing my home page
I use Ad Awarehttp://www.ad-aware.comIt's very good. Dan - Original Message - From: Mike Kear To: CF-Talk Sent: Saturday, May 29, 2004 11:42 AM Subject: OT How to prevent someone changing my home page ( Sorry for the Off Topic post, but you're the guys who will know what I'm looking for ) There's a spyware app or trojan or something changing the home page on my browser all the time and it's giving me a lot of heartburn.Every time I delete the app that changes it, and all references to it in the registry, it finds its way back again. I'll track it down eventually but in the mean time, is there a way to disable the changing of the home page on IE, so while I might not get rid of this damn application, at least it can't keep on altering my home page? (My home page is set to the home page of my intranet, which has a whole screen full of my oft-used links) Cheers Mike Kear AFP Webworks Windsor, NSW, Australia http://afpwebworks.com [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
RE: the ever popular cflock best practice revisited
I am a bit rusty on this topic, but this is all what I remember. If anyone finds a mistake please correct me. -Original Message- From: Chunshen (Don) Li [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, May 29, 2004 1:26 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: the ever popular cflock best practice revisited Hi, I've inherited an app that does not lock session variables.The app runs under CF5.0. Have read cflock best practice for CF5.0. Here are a few questions: (A) CFLOCK 1) heard that cf5 server and cfmx server handles cflock differently, so, would cflock best pratice for cf5 applicable to cfmx if one day the app upgraded to cfmx? [Tom Kitta] In CF5 locking was needed because all persistent scope variables (session/application and server) could become corrupted if accessed at the same time. Could even crash the server (or so theory goes). In CFMX thanks in part to Java, this is no longer the case. However, you still need cflock tag for the race conditions (rare occasions, but still does happen). 2) what about this notion of the NAME attribute, that is, a different lock name would differentiate data/value inside a lock (be it read and write when applicable), the analog of gym's lock room. No? with a SAME lock NAME, cf server (5.0/prior and cfmx) would treat each request as students line up to try that SAME lock with each one having a key/request in his/her hand? [Tom Kitta] The name is used when you don't actually lock the persistent scope variables. The lock doesn't care what's in it, it just single threads all requests. 3) given the fact that SCOPE and NAME attributes are mutually exclusive, use one of them would suffice, so, the question is when to use SCOPE and when to use NAME (data integriy number one task, less memory usage second for either preCFMX or CFMX)? [Tom Kitta] Name is less used since it is not for session/application/server. You can use it to say single thread file access for example. (B) Single Threaded Sessions (CF Admin) Could we construe that Single Threaded Sessions mechanism is a way that MM designed to overcome the lousy coding of not locking session variables? By that, I mean, so, instead of going through tons of code modification, just apply the Single Threaded Sessions to let CF server to handle the locks for data integrity.How well does Single Threaded Sessions does this job? [Tom Kitta] As far as I know this is last resort as it will slow down the server considerably. I would not use it for production, maybe for debugging on development server. Thank you. [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
Re: the ever popular cflock best practice revisited
First, Tom, let me thank you for your knowledge and sharing.Please see my follow-up below.
Don
I am a bit rusty on this topic, but this is all what I remember. If anyone
finds a mistake please correct me.
-Original Message-
From: Chunshen (Don) Li [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, May 29, 2004 1:26 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: the ever popular cflock best practice revisited
Hi,
I've inherited an app that does not lock session variables.The app runs
under CF5.0.
Have read cflock best practice for CF5.0. Here are a few questions:
(A) CFLOCK
1) heard that cf5 server and cfmx server handles cflock differently, so,
would cflock best pratice for cf5 applicable to cfmx if one day the app
upgraded to cfmx?
[Tom Kitta]
In CF5 locking was needed because all persistent scope variables
(session/application and server) could become corrupted if accessed at the
same time. Could even crash the server (or so theory goes). In CFMX thanks
in part to Java, this is no longer the case. However, you still need cflock
tag for the race conditions (rare occasions, but still does happen).
In sum, it seems applying cflock is part of best practice for both preCFMX and CFMX.
2) what about this notion of the NAME attribute, that is, a different lock
name would differentiate data/value inside a lock (be it read and write when
applicable), the analog of gym's lock room. No? with a SAME lock NAME, cf
server (5.0/prior and cfmx) would treat each request as students line up to
try that SAME lock with each one having a key/request in his/her hand?
[Tom Kitta]
The name is used when you don't actually lock the persistent scope
variables. The lock doesn't care what's in it, it just single threads all
requests.
Thanks for the clarfication, good to know, in other words, when NAME is used regardless of the value of NAME itself CF server applys single thread for all requests.
3) given the fact that SCOPE and NAME attributes are mutually exclusive,
use one of them would suffice, so, the question is when to use SCOPE and
when to use NAME (data integriy number one task, less memory usage second
for either preCFMX or CFMX)?
[Tom Kitta]
Name is less used since it is not for session/application/server. You can
use it to say single thread file access for example.
I took your comment as SCOPE is preferable to NAME for performance sake, yes?
(B) Single Threaded Sessions (CF Admin)
Could we construe that Single Threaded Sessions mechanism is a way that MM
designed to overcome the lousy coding of not locking session variables? By
that, I mean, so, instead of going through tons of code modification, just
apply the Single Threaded Sessions to let CF server to handle the locks
for data integrity.How well does Single Threaded Sessions does this job?
[Tom Kitta]
As far as I know this is last resort as it will slow down the server
considerably. I would not use it for production, maybe for debugging on
development server.
Agree as last resort.I intend to re-code all the session variable written by prior developer for the app with SCOPE attribute of session, then run two testing {sessions} with concurrent users with Single Threaded Sessions off and on.
I hope this course of action is the best option to circumvent the inherited problem.
Again, thank you very much.
Thank you.
[Todays Threads]
[This Message]
[Subscription]
[Fast Unsubscribe]
[User Settings]
Encrypted URL?
Hi all, I'm looking for a way to have someone download a software that is not on my server, it's on the server of a member, for which I have the URL but I don't want anyone to know that real URL. I don't know if I 'm clear... I have members who has software accessible on their websites and I have members who wants to download those softwares. All members have access to information via our website. We don't want members who wants to download the software to know the real location of the software and we can't have members with the software to download having them uploading the software to our server for a question of storage. So basically we play the postman role but need security. Can someone gave me ideas on how to do this? Thanks Pat [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
Re: the ever popular cflock best practice revisited
[Tom Kitta] The name is used when you don't actually lock the persistent scope variables. The lock doesn't care what's in it, it just single threads all requests. Thanks for the clarfication, good to know, in other words, when NAME is used regardless of the value of NAME itself CF server applys single thread for all requests. All requests with the same name, yes. 3) given the fact that SCOPE and NAME attributes are mutually exclusive, use one of them would suffice, so, the question is when to use SCOPE and when to use NAME (data integriy number one task, less memory usage second for either preCFMX or CFMX)? [Tom Kitta] Name is less used since it is not for session/application/server. You can use it to say single thread file access for example. I took your comment as SCOPE is preferable to NAME for performance sake, yes? The rule of thumb is that properly named locks will perform better than scope locks, however, because you have complete control over the names, named locks can perform worse than scoped locks if the name provided is inspecific, i.e. cflock scope=session will probably perform better than cflock name=session (assuming the same scheme is used for locking the same events throughout the application) on the other hand cflock name=#getcurrenttemplatepath()# will perform _much_ better than cflock scope=session s. isaac dealey214.823.9345 new epoch : isn't it time for a change? add features without fixtures with the onTap open source framework http://www.sys-con.com/story/?storyid=44477DE=1 [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
De-Duping from 3 queries
I'm writing anemailing application and we're going to be selecting our addresses from 3 different subscribertables, based on a whole bunch of criteria. I want to merge the 3 queries from the tables into one, then de-dup so we only send one email to each subscriber. Is the followingthe best process to do this? [A] Select the addresses from each table, based on criteria related to that table into Qsubscribers, Qmembers, QSeminarAttendees [B] Create a new query (QTempQuery)in memory, and loop through each of the first queries, inserting the records into the new query. [C] De-dup QTempQueryby using QueryofaQuery to select DISTINCT from QTempQuery. Is there a better way to do it?Seems like a lot of stuff going on in memory without anything being written off to disk at all.At the moment there will be about 2500 records I guess but if it gets too big I might run out of memory mightn't I? And what's the SQL to use emailaddress as the key for SELECT DISTINCT, but still to select all the other fields in the query?(the query has fields calledemailaddress, firstname, lastname, emailsentYN) Cheers Mike Kear AFP Webworks Windsor, NSW, Australia http://afpwebworks.com [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
Re: Encrypted URL?
I don't know if I 'm clear... Perfectly. The only way I can see is to get the file yourself with CFHTTP, then send it to your user. -- ___ REUSE CODE! Use custom tags; See http://www.contentbox.com/claude/customtags/tagstore.cfm (Please send any spam to this address: [EMAIL PROTECTED]) Thanks. [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
RE: CFLogin AD
This sounds like a syntax error. Can you post the manage.cfm file, or lines 15-25 or so. [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
RE: Encrypted URL?
Do what the spammer do. Convert all your characters to there url equivalent... it see this page for conversion... http://www.kerryr.net/pioneers/html2.htm Eric Jones Editor Caffeineinfused.com http://www.caffeineinfused.com/ http://www.caffeineinfused.com -Original Message- From: CFDEV [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, May 29, 2004 12:40 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: Encrypted URL? Hi all, I'm looking for a way to have someone download a software that is not on my server, it's on the server of a member, for which I have the URL but I don't want anyone to know that real URL. I don't know if I 'm clear... I have members who has software accessible on their websites and I have members who wants to download those softwares. All members have access to information via our website. We don't want members who wants to download the software to know the real location of the software and we can't have members with the software to download having them uploading the software to our server for a question of storage. So basically we play the postman role but need security. Can someone gave me ideas on how to do this? Thanks Pat _ [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
RE: Encrypted URL?
Pat, I'm looking for a way to have someone download a software that is not on my server, it's on the server of a member, for which I have the URL but I don't want anyone to know that real URL. Can someone gave me ideas on how to do this? Unless your server is actually serving the file to the user, there's no way to hide the location. Hard drive space these days is extremely cheap, so I wouldn't keep that from storing copies of the software locally. Now bandwidth on the other hand, can get a little more expensive for small organizations. Because of the nature of HTTP, there's no way to redirect a user to another server and truly hide the location--which is why the only way to actually hide the true location, would be for your server to serve the user the file. - Dan [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
RE: the ever popular cflock best practice revisited
[Tom Kitta] Well, as always in these situations I did a quick check as how things are in the real life. Here is my code: cfset mm = GetTickCount() cfloop index=m from=1 to=1 step=1 cflock timeout=30 throwontimeout=Yes type=EXCLUSIVE scope=SESSION cfset session.blob = 123 /cflock /cfloop cfoutputScoped: #GetTickCount() - mm#/cfoutputbr cfset ww =GetTickCount() cfloop index=m from=1 to=1 step=1 cflock timeout=30 throwontimeout=Yes name=hfjdshfkshfks type=EXCLUSIVE cfset session.bleeh = 123 /cflock /cfloop cfoutputNamed: #GetTickCount() - ww#/cfoutputbr I didn't see any performance differences. Maybe it is apparent with more variables used? Incidentally I noticed a lot of people using createUUID() for the named locks. Wow, performance dies right there. You can run it yourself from: http://dev.energyshop.com/tk/mytest.cfm [Tom Kitta] I think it might also be a personal preferance. TK The rule of thumb is that properly named locks will perform better than scope locks, however, because you have complete control over the names, named locks can perform worse than scoped locks if the name provided is inspecific, i.e. cflock scope=session will probably perform better than cflock name=session (assuming the same scheme is used for locking the same events throughout the application) on the other hand cflock name=#getcurrenttemplatepath()# will perform _much_ better than cflock scope=session s. isaac dealey214.823.9345 new epoch : isn't it time for a change? add features without fixtures with the onTap open source framework http://www.sys-con.com/story/?storyid=44477DE=1 [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
RE: the ever popular cflock best practice revisited
[Tom Kitta] Well, as always in these situations I did a quick check as how things are in the real life. Here is my code: cfset mm = GetTickCount() cfloop index=m from=1 to=1 step=1 cflock timeout=30 throwontimeout=Yes type=EXCLUSIVE scope=SESSION cfset session.blob = 123 /cflock /cfloop cfoutputScoped: #GetTickCount() - mm#/cfoutputbr cfset ww =GetTickCount() cfloop index=m from=1 to=1 step=1 cflock timeout=30 throwontimeout=Yes name=hfjdshfkshfks type=EXCLUSIVE cfset session.bleeh = 123 /cflock /cfloop cfoutputNamed: #GetTickCount() - ww#/cfoutputbr I didn't see any performance differences. Maybe it is apparent with more variables used? The problem with this code as a test case isn't so much that you're not using many variables, but that generally speaking, you're not going to see the cflock actually doing anything in this case. It's a single template, so everything within this single template is single-threaded (within a given request) already. Unless you've got several different browsers hitting that same page simultaneously, it will perform almost as though no locking had been included at all (any difference shouldn't be humanly noticeable). Differences in performance between the named lock and the session lock will occur based on the number of simultanous requests to (exclusively) lock the given item. So because any of the scopes should preferably share more variables (and be in heavier use) than a named lock (such as getcurrenttemplatepath()), the scope locks when used will lock the scope more frequently than a named lock, increasing the odds of two requests to lock the scope occuring simultaneously. So the queue to receive a lock on a scoped lock section fills up faster than the queue to receive a lock on a named section (provided you've used a reasonably specific name). The larger the queue, the longer it takes to single-thread through all the requests for that lock. Does this all make sense of have I made it as clear as mud? :) Incidentally I noticed a lot of people using createUUID() for the named locks. Wow, performance dies right there. I don't know about peformance, but with cflock name=#createuuid()# you may as well not lock at all, since each instance of the tag will have a unique name, you'll never get any locking and your race conditions will persist. You can run it yourself from: http://dev.energyshop.com/tk/mytest.cfm [Tom Kitta] I think it might also be a personal preferance. Yes and no. As long as the application runs fast enough to not be problematically slow then you're fine. If you find that an application under load is running slow or certain sections are running slow, in some cases you might find that switching from scope locks to name locks or improving the names on certain locks can improve performance. Though it's tough to define any hard-and-fast rules for handling race-conditions. s. isaac dealey214.823.9345 new epoch : isn't it time for a change? add features without fixtures with the onTap open source framework http://www.sys-con.com/story/?storyid=44477DE=1 [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
Re: OT How to prevent someone changing my home page
I too use AdAware 6.0 (along with the memory resident Ad-Watch) in addition to Symantec virus protection software. Further I also have a firewall in place as provided by my Belkin wireless router.The entire set of product types are required to provide a good defense to the various intruders our there. Even with this in place, I still get spam email from folks that use different source addresses which rules are hard to create to block. An excellent tool to determine how stealth you are in at http://www.pcflank.com/ -- see set of available test in upper left hand menu entitled: Test your System Happy trails... [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
Re: DNS question
since your running DNS It's probably safe to assume you have a webserver that handles multiple sublevel domains you can use site headers (or identities in IIS) in your webserver to do it. I have many different projectsand they are all viewed by http://projectname.mydomain.com all set up through the web server. you just put the header projectname.mydomain.com and point it to the correct directory or IP, set its home dir and voila - you'd still have to add your pointer records to your DNS if it is your PRIMARY DNS server - Original Message - From: Barney Boisvert To: CF-Talk Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2004 4:51 PM Subject: RE: DNS question Depends on your server.BIND will let you, but it will control ALL subdomains, even if you explicitly specific a subdomain to point to another IP (at least that's my understanding).I don't know about any other servers. Cheers, barneyb -Original Message- From: Phillip B [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2004 1:44 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: OT:DNS question Can you use a wild card in DNS? I have several sub domains that need to be set up with more to come. What I want to do is put *.domainname.com in DNS and be done with it. Thanks, Phillip B. [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
Re: the ever popular cflock best practice revisited
Tom, I'm re-writing that portion of other's code using SCOPE attribute of value session for locking now to support concurrent users for the app. Will test it to see result and update you and Isaac. Thanks again. Don P.S. Incidentally I noticed a lot of people using createUUID() for the named locks., I think it's an easy misunderstanding that associates CFLOCK with the normal concept of lock. [Tom Kitta] Well, as always in these situations I did a quick check as how things are in the real life. Here is my code: cfset mm = GetTickCount() cfloop index=m from=1 to=1 step=1 cflock timeout=30 throwontimeout=Yes type=EXCLUSIVE scope=SESSION cfset session.blob = 123 /cflock /cfloop cfoutputScoped: #GetTickCount() - mm#/cfoutputbr cfset ww =GetTickCount() cfloop index=m from=1 to=1 step=1 cflock timeout=30 throwontimeout=Yes name=hfjdshfkshfks type=EXCLUSIVE cfset session.bleeh = 123 /cflock /cfloop cfoutputNamed: #GetTickCount() - ww#/cfoutputbr I didn't see any performance differences. Maybe it is apparent with more variables used? Incidentally I noticed a lot of people using createUUID() for the named locks. Wow, performance dies right there. You can run it yourself from: http://dev.energyshop.com/tk/mytest.cfm [Tom Kitta] I think it might also be a personal preferance. TK The rule of thumb is that properly named locks will perform better than scope locks, however, because you have complete control over the names, named locks can perform worse than scoped locks if the name provided is inspecific, i.e. cflock scope=session will probably perform better than cflock name=session (assuming the same scheme is used for locking the same events throughout the application) on the other hand cflock name=#getcurrenttemplatepath()# will perform _much_ better than cflock scope=session s. isaac dealey214.823.9345 new epoch : isn't it time for a change? add features without fixtures with the onTap open source framework http://www.sys-con.com/story/?storyid=44477DE=1 [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
Working with very large numbers
Does CF (v5) have a means of doing math with very large numbers?Example: cfset a = 57104432845826048260 cfset b = a + 1 cfoutput pre a= #a# b= #b# b= #NumberFormat(b, )# /pre /cfoutput Output: a= 57104432845826048260 b= 5.71044328458E+019 b= 57104432845826048000 [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
Re: the ever popular cflock best practice revisited
I love mud, Issac, :) I think you made some valid points.To create a cf lock like cflock name='session' ... is totally and obviously senseless. Don [Tom Kitta] Well, as always in these situations I did a quick check as how things are in the real life. Here is my code: cfset mm = GetTickCount() cfloop index=m from=1 to=1 step=1 cflock timeout=30 throwontimeout=Yes type=EXCLUSIVE scope=SESSION cfset session.blob = 123 /cflock /cfloop cfoutputScoped: #GetTickCount() - mm#/cfoutputbr cfset ww =GetTickCount() cfloop index=m from=1 to=1 step=1 cflock timeout=30 throwontimeout=Yes name=hfjdshfkshfks type=EXCLUSIVE cfset session.bleeh = 123 /cflock /cfloop cfoutputNamed: #GetTickCount() - ww#/cfoutputbr I didn't see any performance differences. Maybe it is apparent with more variables used? The problem with this code as a test case isn't so much that you're not using many variables, but that generally speaking, you're not going to see the cflock actually doing anything in this case. It's a single template, so everything within this single template is single-threaded (within a given request) already. Unless you've got several different browsers hitting that same page simultaneously, it will perform almost as though no locking had been included at all (any difference shouldn't be humanly noticeable). Differences in performance between the named lock and the session lock will occur based on the number of simultanous requests to (exclusively) lock the given item. So because any of the scopes should preferably share more variables (and be in heavier use) than a named lock (such as getcurrenttemplatepath()), the scope locks when used will lock the scope more frequently than a named lock, increasing the odds of two requests to lock the scope occuring simultaneously. So the queue to receive a lock on a scoped lock section fills up faster than the queue to receive a lock on a named section (provided you've used a reasonably specific name). The larger the queue, the longer it takes to single-thread through all the requests for that lock. Does this all make sense of have I made it as clear as mud? :) Incidentally I noticed a lot of people using createUUID() for the named locks. Wow, performance dies right there. I don't know about peformance, but with cflock name=#createuuid()# you may as well not lock at all, since each instance of the tag will have a unique name, you'll never get any locking and your race conditions will persist. You can run it yourself from: http://dev.energyshop.com/tk/mytest.cfm [Tom Kitta] I think it might also be a personal preferance. Yes and no. As long as the application runs fast enough to not be problematically slow then you're fine. If you find that an application under load is running slow or certain sections are running slow, in some cases you might find that switching from scope locks to name locks or improving the names on certain locks can improve performance. Though it's tough to define any hard-and-fast rules for handling race-conditions. s. isaac dealey214.823.9345 new epoch : isn't it time for a change? add features without fixtures with the onTap open source framework http://www.sys-con.com/story/?storyid=44477DE=1 [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
RE: the ever popular cflock best practice revisited
Don wrote: In sum, it seems applying cflock is part of best practice for both preCFMX and CFMX. Yes, it's a part of each but for different reasons.In CF5 on down, you lock persistent scopes because if you don't you are taking your application's life in your hands.As was said earlier, you can wind up getting corrupt data in the form of shared session info, a flat-out crashed CF service, waxy yellow buildup, ingrown toenails etc.All very nasty. In CF5 on down, you *also* locked to prevent race conditions; an entirely separate circumstance.A simple example would be an application variable that increments itself on each individual page hit: cflock scope=application type=exclusive timeout=10 cfset application.sitecounter=application.sitecounter+1 cfoutput This is page visit number #application.sitecounter# today. /cfoutput /cflock You would lock the variable write and read to make sure that the user saw the accurate page count, and not a number generated by someone else. In CF 6+, the first of these two cases is no longer an issue, so anything that was locked before *solely* for the sake of the first case above no longer needs it.However, if you upgrade it won't hurt under all but very extreme circumstances just to leave the locks in, so unless you have a compelling reason... skip the anguish of recoding. Further, if you have a race condition that is inconsequential, then you can also dispense with locking.Using the example above, you as a developer would have to ask yourself if you or anyone else really cared if the display count was off by a tick or two.If the answer is no, then you can get rid of that lock as well. A more real world example would be a datasource name in the application scope.Since it's the same globally, it doesn't matter if a race condition occurs since the value is set only once in a while ... and even if it wasn't, its the same value no matter what, anyway.Same deal with a user session variable value that is only set once per session, for example after someone logs in. It feels very naughty to code in a naked cfquery datasource=#application.SiteDSN# name=myItem ... /cfquery But its not going to hurt anything on MX. Matt Robertson [EMAIL PROTECTED] MSB Designs, Inc.http://mysecretbase.com [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
ugly truth
One would never expect a production server running with 256 MB RAM but it's true I just found out from my client.The thing is it's totally beyond me that Dell would roll out a machine with this little amount of RAM and label it as a SERVER and sell to customers even three or fours years ago. Now, I can't dig up doucmentation on CF5's system requirement, well, on a 256 MB RAM box somehow CF5 runs, but I would seriously doubt that with this little amount of memory CF server would be able to handle SESSION locking management very well (even session vars are properly locked),with extremely query-extensive or heavy-duty queries, and say, with 5 or 10 concurrent users hit same page/request.What's your thought? Certainly I'm pushing my client to throw in more RAMs on the box. TIA. Don Li [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
Re: ugly truth
With 5 to 10 concurrent users the box will run, but will be somewhat kludgy, especially if the SQL DB is on the same box (not recommended) Recommended minimum RAM is 1 GB If the Existing RAM is ECC RAM, the upgrade will be around $450.00, but is just DR RAM, the upgrade will be about half that to bring it up to 1 GB If they use Oracle DB, then the recommended RAM is 4 GB, minimum == Our Anti-spam solution works!! http://www.clickdoug.com/mailfilter.cfm For hosting solutions http://www.clickdoug.com http://www.forta.com/cf/isp/isp.cfm?isp_id=1069 == - Original Message - From: Chunshen (Don) Li To: CF-Talk Sent: Saturday, May 29, 2004 6:59 PM Subject: ugly truth One would never expect a production server running with 256 MB RAM but it's true I just found out from my client.The thing is it's totally beyond me that Dell would roll out a machine with this little amount of RAM and label it as a SERVER and sell to customers even three or fours years ago. Now, I can't dig up doucmentation on CF5's system requirement, well, on a 256 MB RAM box somehow CF5 runs, but I would seriously doubt that with this little amount of memory CF server would be able to handle SESSION locking management very well (even session vars are properly locked),with extremely query-extensive or heavy-duty queries, and say, with 5 or 10 concurrent users hit same page/request.What's your thought? Certainly I'm pushing my client to throw in more RAMs on the box. TIA. Don Li [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
RE: ugly truth
Don, If they're PowerApp web 100 servers then I can believe it as I used to have four of those in a load balanced array running IIS5/CF5 on 256Mb RAM. Not one of the applications used the session scope at all though. We turned it off and opted for the client scope so we could have roaming sessions rather than having to have sticky sessions. When we expanded the site from 1 old DELL 2400 to the 4 PowerApps and 2 2450's, we re-coded the site to use client vars exclusively. It took 4 weeks, was a real pain but paid for itself in improved stability and performance within days of going live. Those 6 servers I believe are still in service (I left that company in January) and are serving circa 3-5 million pages a month. All of the grunt of the application is in the clustered SQL Server DB running on the 2450's with a shared external RAID array in an active/passive setup. I don't see any reason why those servers won't carry on running till they finally fail as the way they are configured, there is no (not one single bit) of critical software or CF source on them so they can be taken of line, rebooted or replaced at anytime day or night with no effect on the rest of the system. If you do have PowerApp web 100 application servers then you may have trouble locating memory. Crucial dont stock it any more, DELL tell you to replace the servers we had a nightmare of a time trying to upgrade them. In the end we decided to do something different and augmented the system with two new DELL 2650s (one as an application server and one as a file server) taking some of the strain off of the original web-servers. Both the 2450's and the 2650's have 2Gb of RAM. Paul [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
Re: ugly truth
Paul, Thanks for sharing your experience with DELL server, sorry I did not provide more info about the DELL server, it's 1550 for WEB server (IIS 5.0) and 2550 for Access 2000. About client variable vs. session variable, I'll keep it in mind. Don Don, If they're PowerApp web 100 servers then I can believe it as I used to have four of those in a load balanced array running IIS5/CF5 on 256Mb RAM. Not one of the applications used the session scope at all though. We turned it off and opted for the client scope so we could have roaming sessions rather than having to have sticky sessions. When we expanded the site from 1 old DELL 2400 to the 4 PowerApps and 2 2450's, we re-coded the site to use client vars exclusively. It took 4 weeks, was a real pain but paid for itself in improved stability and performance within days of going live. Those 6 servers I believe are still in service (I left that company in January) and are serving circa 3-5 million pages a month. All of the grunt of the application is in the clustered SQL Server DB running on the 2450's with a shared external RAID array in an active/passive setup. I don't see any reason why those servers won't carry on running till they finally fail as the way they are configured, there is no (not one single bit) of critical software or CF source on them so they can be taken of line, rebooted or replaced at anytime day or night with no effect on the rest of the system. If you do have PowerApp web 100 application servers then you may have trouble locating memory. Crucial dont stock it any more, DELL tell you to replace the servers we had a nightmare of a time trying to upgrade them. In the end we decided to do something different and augmented the system with two new DELL 2650s (one as an application server and one as a file server) taking some of the strain off of the original web-servers. Both the 2450's and the 2650's have 2Gb of RAM. Paul [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
Re: ugly truth
Thanks. They are Dell 1550 for WEB server (IIS 5.0) and 2550 for Access 2000 (intend to upgrade to SQL Server) (they have a total of 4 boxes). And I intend to recommend installing CF5 on a box that has most RAM and Access db on the box that has second most RAM. With 5 to 10 concurrent users the box will run, but will be somewhat kludgy, especially if the SQL DB is on the same box (not recommended) Recommended minimum RAM is 1 GB If the Existing RAM is ECC RAM, the upgrade will be around $450.00, but is just DR RAM, the upgrade will be about half that to bring it up to 1 GB If they use Oracle DB, then the recommended RAM is 4 GB, minimum == Our Anti-spam solution works!! http://www.clickdoug.com/mailfilter.cfm For hosting solutions http://www.clickdoug.com http://www.forta.com/cf/isp/isp.cfm?isp_id=1069 == - Original Message - From: Chunshen (Don) Li To: CF-Talk Sent: Saturday, May 29, 2004 6:59 PM Subject: ugly truth One would never expect a production server running with 256 MB RAM but it's true I just found out from my client.The thing is it's totally beyond me that Dell would roll out a machine with this little amount of RAM and label it as a SERVER and sell to customers even three or fours years ago. Now, I can't dig up doucmentation on CF5's system requirement, well, on a 256 MB RAM box somehow CF5 runs, but I would seriously doubt that with this little amount of memory CF server would be able to handle SESSION locking management very well (even session vars are properly locked),with extremely query-extensive or heavy-duty queries, and say, with 5 or 10 concurrent users hit same page/request.What's your thought? Certainly I'm pushing my client to throw in more RAMs on the box. TIA. Don Li [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
Re: ugly truth
It will be good to upgrade to SQL2k, because concurrency is an issue with Access 2000, and it will not scale up very well. == Our Anti-spam solution works!! http://www.clickdoug.com/mailfilter.cfm For hosting solutions http://www.clickdoug.com http://www.forta.com/cf/isp/isp.cfm?isp_id=1069 == - Original Message - From: Chunshen (Don) Li To: CF-Talk Sent: Saturday, May 29, 2004 7:32 PM Subject: Re: ugly truth Thanks. They are Dell 1550 for WEB server (IIS 5.0) and 2550 for Access 2000 (intend to upgrade to SQL Server) (they have a total of 4 boxes). And I intend to recommend installing CF5 on a box that has most RAM and Access db on the box that has second most RAM. With 5 to 10 concurrent users the box will run, but will be somewhat kludgy, especially if the SQL DB is on the same box (not recommended) Recommended minimum RAM is 1 GB If the Existing RAM is ECC RAM, the upgrade will be around $450.00, but is just DR RAM, the upgrade will be about half that to bring it up to 1 GB If they use Oracle DB, then the recommended RAM is 4 GB, minimum == Our Anti-spam solution works!! http://www.clickdoug.com/mailfilter.cfm For hosting solutions http://www.clickdoug.com http://www.forta.com/cf/isp/isp.cfm?isp_id=1069 == - Original Message - From: Chunshen (Don) Li To: CF-Talk Sent: Saturday, May 29, 2004 6:59 PM Subject: ugly truth One would never expect a production server running with 256 MB RAM but it's true I just found out from my client.The thing is it's totally beyond me that Dell would roll out a machine with this little amount of RAM and label it as a SERVER and sell to customers even three or fours years ago. Now, I can't dig up doucmentation on CF5's system requirement, well, on a 256 MB RAM box somehow CF5 runs, but I would seriously doubt that with this little amount of memory CF server would be able to handle SESSION locking management very well (even session vars are properly locked),with extremely query-extensive or heavy-duty queries, and say, with 5 or 10 concurrent users hit same page/request.What's your thought? Certainly I'm pushing my client to throw in more RAMs on the box. TIA. Don Li [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
Re: ugly truth
Agree 100% and that's what I advised my client and thanks for being on my side :) It will be good to upgrade to SQL2k, because concurrency is an issue with Access 2000, and it will not scale up very well. == Our Anti-spam solution works!! http://www.clickdoug.com/mailfilter.cfm For hosting solutions http://www.clickdoug.com http://www.forta.com/cf/isp/isp.cfm?isp_id=1069 == - Original Message - From: Chunshen (Don) Li To: CF-Talk Sent: Saturday, May 29, 2004 7:32 PM Subject: Re: ugly truth Thanks. They are Dell 1550 for WEB server (IIS 5.0) and 2550 for Access 2000 (intend to upgrade to SQL Server) (they have a total of 4 boxes). And I intend to recommend installing CF5 on a box that has most RAM and Access db on the box that has second most RAM. With 5 to 10 concurrent users the box will run, but will be somewhat kludgy, especially if the SQL DB is on the same box (not recommended) Recommended minimum RAM is 1 GB If the Existing RAM is ECC RAM, the upgrade will be around $450.00, but is just DR RAM, the upgrade will be about half that to bring it up to 1 GB If they use Oracle DB, then the recommended RAM is 4 GB, minimum == Our Anti-spam solution works!! http://www.clickdoug.com/mailfilter.cfm For hosting solutions http://www.clickdoug.com http://www.forta.com/cf/isp/isp.cfm?isp_id=1069 == - Original Message - From: Chunshen (Don) Li To: CF-Talk Sent: Saturday, May 29, 2004 6:59 PM Subject: ugly truth One would never expect a production server running with 256 MB RAM but it's true I just found out from my client.The thing is it's totally beyond me that Dell would roll out a machine with this little amount of RAM and label it as a SERVER and sell to customers even three or fours years ago. Now, I can't dig up doucmentation on CF5's system requirement, well, on a 256 MB RAM box somehow CF5 runs, but I would seriously doubt that with this little amount of memory CF server would be able to handle SESSION locking management very well (even session vars are properly locked),with extremely query-extensive or heavy-duty queries, and say, with 5 or 10 concurrent users hit same page/request.What's your thought? Certainly I'm pushing my client to throw in more RAMs on the box. TIA. Don Li [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
Re: ugly truth
Of course you can easily handle 1 request per second with Access and that equates to more traffic than many sites need to deal with. Who cares about concurrency when you don't need it? -Matt On May 29, 2004, at 8:52 PM, Doug White wrote: It will be good to upgrade to SQL2k, because concurrency is an issue with Access 2000, and it will not scale up very well. == Our Anti-spam solution works!! http://www.clickdoug.com/mailfilter.cfm For hosting solutions http://www.clickdoug.com http://www.forta.com/cf/isp/isp.cfm?isp_id=1069 == - Original Message - From: Chunshen (Don) Li To: CF-Talk Sent: Saturday, May 29, 2004 7:32 PM Subject: Re: ugly truth Thanks. They are Dell 1550 for WEB server (IIS 5.0) and 2550 for Access 2000 (intend to upgrade to SQL Server) (they have a total of 4 boxes). And I intend to recommend installing CF5 on a box that has most RAM and Access db on the box that has second most RAM. With 5 to 10 concurrent users the box will run, but will be somewhat kludgy, especially if the SQL DB is on the same box (not recommended) Recommended minimum RAM is 1 GB If the Existing RAM is ECC RAM, the upgrade will be around $450.00, but is just DR RAM, the upgrade will be about half that to bring it up to 1 GB If they use Oracle DB, then the recommended RAM is 4 GB, minimum == Our Anti-spam solution works!! http://www.clickdoug.com/mailfilter.cfm For hosting solutions http://www.clickdoug.com http://www.forta.com/cf/isp/isp.cfm?isp_id=1069 == - Original Message - From: Chunshen (Don) Li To: CF-Talk Sent: Saturday, May 29, 2004 6:59 PM Subject: ugly truth One would never expect a production server running with 256 MB RAM but it's true I just found out from my client. The thing is it's totally beyond me that Dell would roll out a machine with this little amount of RAM and label it as a SERVER and sell to customers even three or fours years ago. Now, I can't dig up doucmentation on CF5's system requirement, well, on a 256 MB RAM box somehow CF5 runs, but I would seriously doubt that with this little amount of memory CF server would be able to handle SESSION locking management very well (even session vars are properly locked), with extremely query-extensive or heavy-duty queries, and say, with 5 or 10 concurrent users hit same page/request. What's your thought? Certainly I'm pushing my client to throw in more RAMs on the box. TIA. Don Li [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
Re: ugly truth
Client wants to run 30 concurrent users testing/training. Still Access? And I don't want to argue with a client. Of course you can easily handle 1 request per second with Access and that equates to more traffic than many sites need to deal with. Who cares about concurrency when you don't need it? -Matt On May 29, 2004, at 8:52 PM, Doug White wrote: [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
CFC Document Root Element is Missing Error
Evening,
I'm using a modified CFC originally from the Macromedia site to grab a
RSS News Feed. The .cfc file is in the same folder as the doc calling
the CFC.
It works perfectlly on my local machine. However, when I put it out on
the server, I get a Document Root Element is Missing error message.
Anybody got any ideas?I have access to the CF Admin. on the server in
question.
Thanks
CODE BELOW:
*On the Page outputting the feed:*
cfinvoke component=GetNewsFeed method=getheadlines
returnVariable=newsfeed url=""
type=rss
!---Queries and Output Statements on down the page ---
*GETNEWSFEED.cfc**
cfcomponent
cffunction name=GetHeadlines access=public output=True
cfargument name=url type=string required=true/
cfargument name=type type=string required=true/
cfhttp url="">
cfscript
try {
switch(trim(lcase(arguments.type))) {
case 'rdf':
selectedElements = XmlSearch(xmlparse(cfhttp.filecontent),
/rdf:RDF/:item);
break;
case 'rss':
selectedElements = XmlSearch(xmlparse(cfhttp.filecontent),
/rss/channel/item);
break;
default:
return false;
break;
}
articles = QueryNew(title, link, description);
for(index = 1;index lt ArrayLen(selectedElements);index = index +
1) {
QueryAddRow(articles);
QuerySetCell(articles,title,selectedElements[index].title.XmlText);
QuerySetCell(articles,link,selectedElements[index].link.XmlText);
QuerySetCell(articles,description,selectedElements[index].description.XmlText);
}
} catch(Any excpt) {
return excpt.Message;
}
/cfscript
cfreturn articles/
/cffunction
/cfcomponent
--
Les Mizzell
---
Do geeks die when exposed to sunlight?
---
[Todays Threads]
[This Message]
[Subscription]
[Fast Unsubscribe]
[User Settings]
