[KCFusion] include vs custom tag
Title: include vs custom tag We're still using cf 4.5 sp2. We're currently having a disagreement about whether to define our new framework for a site based on custom tags for each page basically, or the same thing using includes instead. I personally think the custom tags are a complete necessity, because of variable scoping, but I need to know the true benchmarking difference that people have seen when using one vs the other, or just in a per call difference in milliseconds per call, if anyone happens to know it or can point me to somewhere with the stats.
RE: [KCFusion] include vs custom tag
Title: include vs custom tag I'm seeing it on one of our test servers as .5 ms avg to run an include, and 1 ms to run a custom tag. Can anyone else verify that the custom tag would take about twice the time? -Original Message-From: Dunwiddie, Bruce [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 10:29 AMTo: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'Subject: [KCFusion] include vs custom tag We're still using cf 4.5 sp2. We're currently having a disagreement about whether to define our new framework for a site based on custom tags for each page basically, or the same thing using includes instead. I personally think the custom tags are a complete necessity, because of variable scoping, but I need to know the true benchmarking difference that people have seen when using one vs the other, or just in a per call difference in milliseconds per call, if anyone happens to know it or can point me to somewhere with the stats.
Re: [KCFusion] include vs custom tag
Title: include vs custom tag Curious. If you have time, can you explain what you mean exactly when you say you are going to use custom tags for the framework? A. - Original Message - From: Dunwiddie, Bruce To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 10:29 AM Subject: [KCFusion] include vs custom tag We're still using cf 4.5 sp2. We're currently having a disagreement about whether to define our new framework for a site based on custom tags for each page basically, or the same thing using includes instead. I personally think the custom tags are a complete necessity, because of variable scoping, but I need to know the true benchmarking difference that people have seen when using one vs the other, or just in a per call difference in milliseconds per call, if anyone happens to know it or can point me to somewhere with the stats.
RE: [KCFusion] include vs custom tag
Title: include vs custom tag I'll leave the answer currently to simply changing the basic idea of fusebox with all the action based includes, to using action based custom tag calls instead. -Original Message-From: Adaryl Wakefield [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 11:02 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [KCFusion] include vs custom tag Curious. If you have time, can you explain what you mean exactly when you say you are going to use custom tags for the framework? A. - Original Message - From: Dunwiddie, Bruce To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 10:29 AM Subject: [KCFusion] include vs custom tag We're still using cf 4.5 sp2. We're currently having a disagreement about whether to define our new framework for a site based on custom tags for each page basically, or the same thing using includes instead. I personally think the custom tags are a complete necessity, because of variable scoping, but I need to know the true benchmarking difference that people have seen when using one vs the other, or just in a per call difference in milliseconds per call, if anyone happens to know it or can point me to somewhere with the stats.
RE: [KCFusion] include vs custom tag
Title: include vs custom tag what version of fusebox are you changing? -Original Message-From: Dunwiddie, Bruce [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 11:11 AMTo: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'Subject: RE: [KCFusion] include vs custom tag I'll leave the answer currently to simply changing the basic idea of fusebox with all the action based includes, to using action based custom tag calls instead. -Original Message-From: Adaryl Wakefield [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 11:02 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [KCFusion] include vs custom tag Curious. If you have time, can you explain what you mean exactly when you say you are going to use custom tags for the framework? A. - Original Message - From: Dunwiddie, Bruce To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 10:29 AM Subject: [KCFusion] include vs custom tag We're still using cf 4.5 sp2. We're currently having a disagreement about whether to define our new framework for a site based on custom tags for each page basically, or the same thing using includes instead. I personally think the custom tags are a complete necessity, because of variable scoping, but I need to know the true benchmarking difference that people have seen when using one vs the other, or just in a per call difference in milliseconds per call, if anyone happens to know it or can point me to somewhere with the stats.
RE: [KCFusion] include vs custom tag
Title: include vs custom tag I'm not changing fusebox. We're creating our own framework. We're changing the overall idea behind fusebox. -Original Message-From: Matt Jones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 11:08 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: RE: [KCFusion] include vs custom tag what version of fusebox are you changing? -Original Message-From: Dunwiddie, Bruce [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 11:11 AMTo: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'Subject: RE: [KCFusion] include vs custom tag I'll leave the answer currently to simply changing the basic idea of fusebox with all the action based includes, to using action based custom tag calls instead. -Original Message-From: Adaryl Wakefield [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 11:02 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [KCFusion] include vs custom tag Curious. If you have time, can you explain what you mean exactly when you say you are going to use custom tags for the framework? A. - Original Message - From: Dunwiddie, Bruce To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 10:29 AM Subject: [KCFusion] include vs custom tag We're still using cf 4.5 sp2. We're currently having a disagreement about whether to define our new framework for a site based on custom tags for each page basically, or the same thing using includes instead. I personally think the custom tags are a complete necessity, because of variable scoping, but I need to know the true benchmarking difference that people have seen when using one vs the other, or just in a per call difference in milliseconds per call, if anyone happens to know it or can point me to somewhere with the stats.
RE: [KCFusion] include vs custom tag
Title: include vs custom tag well, we would probably use cfmodule instead of the custom tags if custom tags win this discussion, so I'm not really worried about that part. your viewpoints on using cfmodule instead of cfinclude however are interesting. -Original Message-From: Glenn Crocker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 11:23 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: RE: [KCFusion] include vs custom tag I've built some substantially huge CF sites, and using cfmodule instead of cfinclude wherever you can is critical. Execution time is probably not the key issue, really, it's development time. If you can build the site more reliably, faster, and cheaper, a half millisecond per page is irrelevant. I've spent a huge amount of time converting an old side-effect-riddled cfinclude-style site to cfmodule, and it's paying dividends every time we do it. I wouldn't advise going crazy with full-on custom tag madness. In particular, hosting sites that rely on first-class custom tags (as opposed to cfmodule) can be difficult. For small enough sites, this kind of thing might not be a consideration, but if you're looking at over a hundred .cfm files, cfmodule will save your sanity. -glenn -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Dunwiddie, BruceSent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 10:29 AMTo: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'Subject: [KCFusion] include vs custom tag We're still using cf 4.5 sp2. We're currently having a disagreement about whether to define our new framework for a site based on custom tags for each page basically, or the same thing using includes instead. I personally think the custom tags are a complete necessity, because of variable scoping, but I need to know the true benchmarking difference that people have seen when using one vs the other, or just in a per call difference in milliseconds per call, if anyone happens to know it or can point me to somewhere with the stats.
