Which brings up a follow on thread:
What would you recommend as good reading on Architecture?
Jerry
Jerry Johnson
Web Developer
Dolan Media Company
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 12/02/04 02:53AM
To write a good application, knowing ColdFusion is only 1% and most
people don't seem to understand that
Personally, the advantages of cfmodule outweigh those of cfinclude. The
performance hit of cfmodule is really low, and cfmodule provides you
with encapsulation. Variables defined within a template called by
cfmodule have no effect on the executed code outside that template
(unless you are using
I've was thinking about this post last night - don't ask.
To give you a little background im mainly a solid Fuseboxer so issues
of layout have always been in the back of my head as it is something
FB accomodates for. But the one thing i love about the move from FB2
to FB3 was having the layout
Why would you want to do that :)
Currently this is how the source looks from our CMS pages based for the
CF5 version ..
cfmodule
template=#Request.Application.RootMapping#includes/loadTemplate.cfm
templateName=header
objectName=page
cfmodule
The loadtemplate.cfm is a engine which provides us with overriding
schemes.
So basically you're using a cfmodule to cfinclude some files depending
on what is in the attributes of the tag.
I personally would only use cfsavecontent for caching logic.
Then you would have encapsulated those tags
If I remember correctly, doesn't cfmodule create a whole new memory
block for every call, where as the cfinclude will only use the existing
memory space and be part of the normal page cache?
Yes. In fact, that's at least part of the point. cfmodule -- and custom tags
in general -- provide
In ASP based services, cfimport is useless because it demands a static
taglib attribute. That takes away all the glamour and glitter the tag
could have. At.. least.. for me ;)
Micha Schopman
Software Engineer
Modern Media, Databankweg 12 M, 3821 AL Amersfoort
Tel 033-4535377, Fax 033-4535388
In ASP based services, cfimport is useless because it demands a static
taglib attribute. That takes away all the glamour and glitter the tag
could have. At.. least.. for me ;)
I agree that it's an unfortunate limitation, but I'm not sure how ASP based
services has any direct relevance? We have
Ben,
Imagine this situation. You have a CMS, and it has a shared directory
with templates for all customers. Each customer has also its own
directory with templates. These template function as overriding
templates instead of those shared templates (see them as virtual and
those of the customer as
Ben Rogers wrote:
In ASP based services, cfimport is useless because it demands a static
taglib attribute. That takes away all the glamour and glitter the tag
could have. At.. least.. for me ;)
I agree that it's an unfortunate limitation, but I'm not sure how ASP based
services has any
Our framework here uses the custom tag approach, not to imply it is
the best way to go, just what has been in use here for years. So a
typical page could be something like:
cf_headertag title=Blah check=Yes userlevel=GenUp
cf_tableheader title=Something
trtdBlah/td/tr
cf_tablefooter
cf_button
I am going to regret this, but...
We use a similar approach, and for the same reasons.
But instead of the cf_footer tag, we use /cf_header. (No parameters are
passed to the close tags.)
cf_channelHeader title=Blah
cf_channelContent title= subtitle= subscriberOnly=
Blah
Ben Rogers wrote:
If I remember correctly, doesn't cfmodule create a whole new memory
block for every call, where as the cfinclude will only use the existing
memory space and be part of the normal page cache?
Yes. In fact, that's at least part of the point. cfmodule -- and custom tags
in
or not it will be hosted in an ASP environment.
Ben Rogers
http://www.c4.net
v.508.240.0051
f.508.240.0057
-Original Message-
From: Micha Schopman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 10:40 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: CFMODULE vs. CFINCLUDE
Ben,
Imagine this situation. You have
ASP = Application Server Provider not Active Server Pages in this instance
Heh, I think we're all aware of that. But thanks for lookin' out -- or did
you just figure it out yourself?
Ben Rogers
http://www.c4.net
v.508.240.0051
f.508.240.0057
Our footer normally is called with no parameters, it just has the
ability for a few to be sent to it. Offhand the only one I can think
of is the turning off of the navigation links that are normally
displayed in it.
--
Aaron Rouse
http://www.happyhacker.com/
On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 11:56:23 -0500,
We are still on CF5 here, very few MX boxes on our network and never
had the luck to get a project onto one of them. We will be going to
MX though once Blackstone is out, sadly such is the way of life around
here. He did not go to Oracle 9i until 10g was out as well.
Unfortunately I doubt they
-Original Message-
From: Jerry Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 10:56 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: CFMODULE vs. CFINCLUDE
I am going to regret this, but...
We use a similar approach, and for the same reasons.
But instead of the cf_footer tag, we use
You are quite correct. However, using cfmodule and custom tags is
potentially is server killer because it is EVERY call to the
cfmodule/tag and not just the first call that grabs additional memory.
So for every page call for every site visitor more memory is allocated
for each cfmodule.
. This doesn't really turn
out to be a problem but occasionally it requires some awkward maneuvering.
Mark
-Original Message-
From: Jerry Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 11:56 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: CFMODULE vs. CFINCLUDE
I am going to regret
Would there be any advantage to doing this though?
--
Aaron Rouse
http://www.happyhacker.com/
On Wed, 1 Dec 2004 11:30:30 -0600, Phillip Holmes
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If running CFMX, you could always do this as well (with CFMODULE or
CFINCLUDE):
cfscript
variables.iString =
Depends on the efficiency of your construct. If you do it right, there are
many. That CFC would just be apart of a larger OO schema.
Phil
-Original Message-
From: Aaron Rouse [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 12:30 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: CFMODULE vs
You'd have to use a hell of a lot custom tags for this to
ever become an issue. As noted in previous messages, I make
extensive use of custom tags and have yet to run into a
performance problem caused by the use of custom tags in the
manners described.
I think this type of thinking
Prior to CFMX, I've run into all sorts of performance problems with custom
tags under load, not just ones that did recursion.
Such as the aforementioned memory consumption or something else? I had some
problems in ColdFusion 4.0, though I think (besides not giving up memory)
most were squared
Prior to CFMX, I've run into all sorts of performance problems
with custom tags under load, not just ones that did recursion.
Such as the aforementioned memory consumption or something
else?
Poor response times.
I had some problems in ColdFusion 4.0, though I think
(besides not
And, frankly, I find if very difficult to believe that you've never had a
problem. I can see where the use of naming conventions and such would help
prevent such problems. But to say you've never had a problem -- well, I
assume you're making use of hyperbole.
Wow, we're in the midst of another
I had some problems in ColdFusion 4.0, though I think
(besides not giving up memory) most were squared away by 4.1.
I don't think I deployed anything to (nor load tested on)
4.5. ColdFusion 5 seemed to be better about giving up
resources that weren't in use.
CF 5 did release memory,
CF 5 did release memory, while CF 4.0.1 didn't. I don't remember whether
CF 4.5.1 did or not.
Thanks for the correction. I meant 4.0.1. We developed for and hosted on
ColdFusion 4.0.1 until some time after 5 was released. Then we moved most of
our stuff to 5. We are now migrating most of our
Wow, we're in the midst of another list jihad and its not about
FuseBox. Go figure.
I know, and somehow I stumbled right into it. Fortunately, it's an issue
which makes no difference to me. :)
Anyway, he's probably using includes that don't contain a significant
degree of CF logic, which is
And with a box hitting +250 req/sec on a custom tag based application on
a single CPU, I haven't. The whole performance situation depends on the
application, as well as the code in the custom tags.
If you experience serious performance problems due to IO traffic, or
heavy custom tag execution,
CFModule encapsulates the layout nicer than 2 isolated CFINCLUDES...
You have a single layout.cfm which detects if #thistag.executionmode# is
start and shows the header or footer. It makes for an easier read if
the module is CF_TAGNAME'd..
Example... You have layout.cfm, so you can do this:
Michael Dinowitz wrote:
I'm rewriting Raymond's Lighthouse Bugtracker (not my idea) and one piece
bought up an old question I had. Is there any performance difference between
a CFMODULE acting as a layout wrapper or 2 CFINCLUDE templates with layout?
In the first case, your code is:
cfmodule
If I remember correctly, doesn't cfmodule create a whole new memory
block for every call, where as the cfinclude will only use the existing
memory space and be part of the normal page cache?
You are correct, even in CFMX.
Even if this isn't true for CFMX any more, personally, I'd probably
Not that it's a huge deal, but don't forget that cfmodule also requires
a single file compilatation as opossed to two file compilations, as well ;)
~Simon
Simon Horwith
Chief Information Officer, AboutWeb
http://www.aboutweb.com
Member of Team Macromedia
Macromedia Certified Master Instructor
I'd agree with Simon, specifically the not that it's a huge big
deal. I'll go out on a limb here and say if your site will not work
when using cf_foo/cf_foo versus an include, then you have other
problems.
Yes, cf_foo (or cfmodule) is slower than cfinclue.
But don't worry about it.
Unless you
-Original Message-
From: Raymond Camden [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2004 1:59 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: CFMODULE vs. CFINCLUDE
I'd agree with Simon, specifically the not that it's a huge big
deal. I'll go out on a limb here and say if your site will not work
when
: Tuesday, November 30, 2004 1:59 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: CFMODULE vs. CFINCLUDE
I'd agree with Simon, specifically the not that it's a huge big
deal. I'll go out on a limb here and say if your site will not work
when using cf_foo/cf_foo versus an include, then you have other
problems
cfinclude is WAY WAY WAY faster
ALWAYS use includes if you can... Of course there will always be
circumstances where you won't be able to (like recursive calls), but always
try.
+---+
Bryan Love
Macromedia Certified Professional
Internet
cfinclude
Matt Liotta
President CEO
Montara Software, Inc.
http://www.montarasoftware.com/
888-408-0900 x901
-Original Message-
From: Frank Mamone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, September 06, 2002 10:55 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: CFMODULE vs CFINCLUDE
I have a page where
Thanks Matt and Bryan.
- Original Message -
From: Frank Mamone [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, September 06, 2002 1:54 PM
Subject: CFMODULE vs CFINCLUDE
I have a page where I want to conditionally include specific code blocks
which exist in other pages.
I have a page where I want to conditionally include specific code blocks
which exist in other pages.
What is more efficient, CFMODULE or CFINCLUDE?
One thing that wasn't mentioned in some of the other replies I saw to this
thread was that CFMODULE and cfinclude are actually slightly different
-Original Message-
From: Bryan Love [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, September 06, 2002 10:59 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: CFMODULE vs CFINCLUDE
cfinclude is WAY WAY WAY faster
ALWAYS use includes if you can... Of course there will always be
circumstances where you won't be able
42 matches
Mail list logo
