I'm using Ben Forta's NumberAsString and DollarAsString, and I'd like it to
convert 1.00 to One dollar and zero cents, but it converts to One
dollar. Is there a version that does the conversion I'm looking for?
T
~|
Find out
Thane Sherrington wrote:
dollar. Is there a version that does the conversion I'm looking for?
probably overkill but might have a look at icu4j's
RuleBasedNumberFormat. we use it for spellout functionality, etc. in
i18n apps but it can be made to format pretty much anything.
simplified cf
: Thursday, June 16, 2005 7:50 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: NumberAsString UDF question
I'm using Ben Forta's NumberAsString and DollarAsString, and I'd like it to
convert 1.00 to One dollar and zero cents, but it converts to One
dollar. Is there a version that does the conversion I'm looking for?
T
At 09:22 AM 16/06/2005, Ben Forta wrote:
Should be an easy change. In DollarAsString() you'll see a line that reads:
if(cents)
That checks to see if cents is not 0, so just remove (or comment out) that
line and it should do what you want.
Thanks Ben.
T
At 04:56 PM 1/29/03 -0600, you wrote:
- basically it ignores them. Try ListFix,
http://www.cflib.org/udf.cfm?ID=507, to change the null entries to
Raymond,
I looked at this udf - looks great for mid-string changes, however I've got
two questions -
1. How do I include this udf into the loop
-
From: Rafael Alan Bleiweiss [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 8:13 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: ListFix UDF Question
At 04:56 PM 1/29/03 -0600, you wrote:
- basically it ignores them. Try ListFix,
http://www.cflib.org/udf.cfm?ID=507, to change the null entries
I'm trying to do a little UDF to convert something like .77809 to 78%
If I do something like:
outNum=finalResult + '%';
I get an error that says cannot convert % to a number ...
well, I don't want it to be a num. I want it to be a string. I can't find a
way to get a string output in the
outNum = finalResult '%';
Robert Bailey
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Famous for nothing!
http://www.tinetics.com
-Original Message-
From: Owens, Howard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, January 17, 2003 4:29 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: UDF question -- make num a string
I'm trying to do
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, January 17, 2003 4:29 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: UDF question -- make num a string
I'm trying to do a little UDF to convert something like .77809 to 78%
If I do something like:
outNum=finalResult + '%';
I get an error that says cannot convert % to a number
: Friday, January 17, 2003 7:29 PM
Subject: UDF question -- make num a string
I'm trying to do a little UDF to convert something like .77809 to 78%
If I do something like:
outNum=finalResult + '%';
I get an error that says cannot convert % to a number ...
well, I don't want it to be a num
outNum = finalResult '%'
is the concatenation operator in CF (yeah, i know...it can be annoying) :)
charlie
- Original Message -
From: Owens, Howard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, January 17, 2003 5:29 PM
Subject: UDF question -- make num a string
I'm
, inc.
410.931.4092
http://www.atnetsolutions.com
-Original Message-
From: Dave Watts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 12:58 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: locking (was: UDF question)
The question is - do you want CF to automatically handle
everything for you
despite the fact that you're not raymond, i'll respond
to him via your response for him (how's it feel to be a
surrogate ray? :))
I refuse to answer that question because, well, it's kind of weird.
I don't think that's what Ray meant. If I understand
correctly, his distinction was that
Message-
From: Dave Watts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 11:26 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: locking (was: UDF question)
despite the fact that you're not raymond, i'll respond
to him via your response for him (how's it feel to be a
surrogate ray? :))
I refuse
[deletia]
My second question is isn't it true that, assuming all other things
being equal, any algorithm or function coded in binary, compiled
language is going to perform better than one written in a markup
language and executed in JIT or even an interpreted language
executed in
a virtual
Hey all,
Just a thought off the top of my head,
Premise: Local Vars do not need to be cflocked
Why not
1) copy the session structure to a temporary local structure in
Application.cfm:
cflock ...
cfset session_temp = structcopy(session)
/cflock
2) Reference
: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 10:11 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: UDF question
Hey all,
Just a thought off the top of my head,
Premise: Local Vars do not need to be cflocked
Why not
1) copy the session structure to a temporary local structure in
Application.cfm:
cflock ...
cfset
Jim Curran wrote:
1) copy the session structure to a temporary local structure in
Application.cfm:
cflock ...
cfset session_temp = structcopy(session)
/cflock
2) Reference the temp structure in all templates:
cfif isdefined(session_temp.blah)...
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Yahoo IM : morpheus
My ally is the Force, and a powerful ally it is. - Yoda
-Original Message-
From: Matthew R. Small [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 10:21 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: UDF question
I think it's already pretty
3) Set the session struct equal to the temp struct in
OnRequestEnd.cfm
cflock ...
cfset session = structcopy(session_temp)
/cflock
Use Duplicate() instead of StructCopy() because StructCopy() doesn't
copy as many levels as it should.
No - it _does_ go as
Just a thought off the top of my head,
Premise: Local Vars do not need to be cflocked
Why not
1) copy the session structure to a temporary local
structure in Application.cfm:
cflock ...
cfset session_temp = structcopy(session)
/cflock
2) Reference the
Thanks Ray Jochem
- j
-Original Message-
From: Raymond Camden [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 10:18 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: UDF question
Just a reminder - whenever you copy _any_ structure, if you are not 100%
sure the data is flat (no deep structs), you
The server, admittedly, does not host any
extremely-high activity sites.
There's the kicker. Locking variables is something you can *usually* get away with on
low traffic sites. But put any load on these sites and you start getting odd errors
that are seemingly sporadic (if you're not
The only concurrency issues that seem to come up in CF are
when we needto single thread any piece of code - that's what
the locks do. But I haven't seen any code at all that allows
us to start new threads in the same page.
Everytime a new user goes onto your web site, a new thread is
The server, admittedly, does not host any
extremely-high activity sites.
There's the kicker. Locking variables is something you can
*usually* get away with on low traffic sites. But put any
load on these sites and you start getting odd errors that are
seemingly sporadic (if you're
- Original Message -
From: Jim Curran [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Just a thought off the top of my head,
1) copy the session structure to a temporary local structure in
Application.cfm:
cflock ...
cfset session_temp = structcopy(session)
/cflock
Actually, this is one of the more common
- Original Message -
From: Dave Watts [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 11:05 AM
Subject: RE: locking (was: UDF question)
I know that this is only a typo, but you meant Not locking variables ...,
right?
Yep. Missed my morning coffee
PROTECTED]
To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 9:45 AM
Subject: Re: UDF question
The server, admittedly, does not host any
extremely-high activity sites.
There's the kicker. Locking variables is something you can *usually* get
away with on low traffic sites. But put any
The question is - do you want CF to automatically handle
everything for you at the sacrifice of speed?
Raymond,
I'm not Raymond, but I'll attempt a response anyway.
My first question to you is is there ever a reason not to
lock access to Session or Application scoped variables?
You're talking about developers who don't use CFLOCK
because they are ignorant of CF locking issues. I'm
sure we all agree that this is a bad thing, but it's
not exactly relevent to the original discussion.
You can write perfectly solid applications that do
not lock session variable
-
From: Dave Watts [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 12:17 PM
Subject: RE: UDF question
You're talking about developers who don't use CFLOCK
because they are ignorant of CF locking issues. I'm
sure we all agree that this is a bad thing, but it's
I've never seen you issue such an insulting reply. You
yourself have stated that you have no real information
to back up your claims.
Sorry that I disagree with you, but I don't care to have
my professionalism questioned.
I'm sorry that you read my response as a personal insult.
/hour and claiming a need to do a full server-under-load
analysis would be viewed as an overpriced blowhard.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original Message -
From: Dave Watts [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 1:23 PM
Subject: RE: UDF question
I'm sorry
2:07 PM
Subject: Re: UDF question
I realize you weren't insulting me and I apologize.
Please understand that I don't work on projects that cost 100's of thousands
of dollars. My customers and I have modest goals. I want to efficiently
produce clean, maintainable applications that meet
I realize you weren't insulting me and I apologize.
No need for that. We're all rational adults here.
Please understand that I don't work on projects that cost
100's of thousands of dollars. My customers and I have
modest goals. I want to efficiently produce clean,
maintainable
Well at least I was able to find openSTA through this entertaining
conversation!
Neil
-Original Message-
From: Dave Watts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 3:23 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: UDF question
I realize you weren't insulting me and I apologize
A consultant asking $250/hour and claiming a need to do
a full server-under-load analysis would be viewed as an
overpriced blowhard.
I am actually considering a career as an overpriced blowhard at those
rates...
__
Your ad
Please understand that I don't work on projects that cost 100's of
thousands
of dollars. My customers and I have modest goals. I want to efficiently
produce clean, maintainable applications that meet specific needs.
Sounds like the perfect reason to use CFLOCK from the outset. :)
Ken
customers is that I take advantage of resources like this list and the
wonderful contributions of people like Dave Watts.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original Message -
From: Dave Watts [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 2:23 PM
Subject: RE: UDF question
I
And around we go again... (smile)
- Original Message -
From: Ken Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 2:24 PM
Subject: RE: UDF question
Please understand that I don't work on projects that cost 100's of
thousands
of dollars. My
I would be in awe of people who charge such rates if it weren't for that fact
that I've worked with a few.
- Original Message -
From: Tim Claremont [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 2:23 PM
Subject: RE: UDF question
A consultant asking $250
A consultant asking $250/hour and claiming a need to do
a full server-under-load analysis would be viewed as an
overpriced blowhard.
I am actually considering a career as an overpriced blowhard at those
rates...
I've got the blowhard thing down. How exactly does one become overpriced?
analysis would be viewed as
an overpriced blowhard.
- Original Message -
From: Keith [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 2:07 PM
Subject: Re: UDF question
I realize you weren't insulting me and I apologize.
Please understand that I don't work
: RE: UDF question
A consultant asking $250/hour and claiming a need to do
a full server-under-load analysis would be viewed as an
overpriced blowhard.
I am actually considering a career as an overpriced blowhard at those
rates
Dave - 250$ an hour? send them to us, we'll work for half that g.
-mk
P.S. - you guys lawyers or something?
-Original Message-
From: Dave Watts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 12:17 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: UDF question
You're talking about developers
Maybe it's $250 an hour because they can do so same work (or better) in less
than half the time? Just a thought.
-Original Message-
From: Mark A. Kruger - CFG [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 2:16 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: UDF question
Dave - 250$ an hour
Dave - 250$ an hour? send them to us, we'll work for
half that g.
Maybe it's $250 an hour because they can do so same work (or
better) in less than half the time? Just a thought.
Close, perhaps, but more like because we fix the work after your original
consultant screwed up, and you
Jeff,
I have been meaning to talk to you about this. Yunno, the holidays (take
your pick) are upon us and business has been a bit slow on the Sabbath
(again, take your pick). Heaven is starting to look a little frayed around
the edges. Think you might be able to throw a little something on
PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 5:12 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: UDF question
Dave - 250$ an hour? send them to us, we'll work for
half that g.
Maybe it's $250 an hour because they can do so same work (or
better) in less than half the time? Just a thought.
Close, perhaps, but more
ROTFL!
At 03:34 PM 3/19/2002 -0800, you wrote:
Jeff,
I have been meaning to talk to you about this. Yunno, the holidays (take
your pick) are upon us and business has been a bit slow on the Sabbath
(again, take your pick). Heaven is starting to look a little frayed around
the edges. Think
Ben Forta wrote:
Pay a price, yes, especially if you are using frames. But I'd not call
it a steep price.
I would. Partially because I rarely browse with less than a dozen
browser tabs opened. But also because it causes serious issues with long
running queries/cfhttp calls etc. If I use one
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 3:00 AM
Subject: Re: UDF question
Ben Forta wrote:
Pay a price, yes, especially if you are using frames. But I'd not call
it a steep price.
I would. Partially because I rarely browse with less than a dozen
browser tabs
junkMail wrote:
I don't get the first part of your reply. Are you saying that the Single
Threaded Sessions setting on the server is a bad idea because of your browsing
habits?
No. It is a bad idea in general, but for me it is agravated because of
my browsing habits. If I open some 6
Compliance Engineer for Macromedia
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Yahoo IM : morpheus
My ally is the Force, and a powerful ally it is. - Yoda
-Original Message-
From: junkMail [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2002 4:30 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: UDF question
question
Or enable Single Threaded Sessions in the CF Administrator.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original Message -
From: Raymond Camden [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2002 3:14 PM
Subject: RE: UDF question
Of course, you wan't to wrap
Sorry to be a pest but, as I stated earlier on this list,
I have a feeling that most of the fear of Single Threaded
Sessions is based on CF urban legend. I'd welcome some
real information.
Unfortunately, there's very little real information pertaining to server
performance tuning. It has
Or enable Single Threaded Sessions in the CF Administrator.
And pay a steep price in performance...
Pay a price, yes, especially if you are using frames. But
I'd not call it a steep price.
Has anyone ran stats on this one?
I have, for specific problem applications. While I can
of Macromedia
software engineering.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original Message -
From: Howie Hamlin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 8:21 AM
Subject: Re: UDF question
Why CF doesn't protect threaded access to shared memory automatically, I'll
never know
Maybe someone from Macromedia would be kind enough to comment on this?
Success is a journey, not a destination!!
Doug Brown
- Original Message -
From: junkMail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 11:41 AM
Subject: Re: UDF question
Sessions on your server, then you'll need
to do all the sloppy locking. (smile)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original Message -
From: Raymond Camden [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 7:23 AM
Subject: RE: UDF question
I don't recommend this. (Notice I said
Message -
From: junkMail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Monday, March 18, 2002 12:50 pm
Subject: Re: UDF question
Gosh, I disagree completely with this.
For me, having my code littered with irrelevant CFLOCKs is sloppy.
I'm comfortable with requiring the server setting. It's a simple,
clean,set
Hmmm... can we write multithreaded applications in ColdFusion? If so,
please explain how.
- Matt Small
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 2:58 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: UDF question
Interesting.
Any language
-threaded language. It's a language capable of producing
multi-threaded applications, such as ColdFusion.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 1:58 PM
Subject: Re: UDF question
Interesting.
Any language
http://www.javaworld.com/javaworld/javaqa/1999-08/04-qa-leaks.html
- Original Message -
From: Douglas Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 2:44 PM
Subject: Re: UDF question
Maybe someone from Macromedia would be kind enough to comment
PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 3:18 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: UDF question
With respect to this issue, comparing CFML to C++ is apples
to oranges.
I can't expect a low-level language to automatically manage
concurrent access
to shared memory resources, because I have
Howie Hamlin wrote:
Why CF doesn't protect threaded access to shared memory automatically, I'll never
know. It just doesn't make any sense. What if
you're a hosting provider?
Switch on full checking in the Administrator. We do it and explain this
a little bit and everybody is happy. Or at
, March 18, 2002 3:21 PM
Subject: Re: UDF question
http://www.javaworld.com/javaworld/javaqa/1999-08/04-qa-leaks.html
__
This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for
dependable
to the
developer.
-mk
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 1:58 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: UDF question
Interesting.
Any language that implements locking (read: any that are worth
programming in) uses some sort of sloppy locking
: RE: UDF question
(Taking off Macromedia cap and speaking as just one of yall...)
The question is - do you want CF to automatically handle everything for
you at the sacrifice of speed? Here is a good example:
cfset session.x = 1
cfset session.y = 2
cfloop ...
cfset session[foo#x
But shouldn't this whole issue be written into the server code?
Wouldn't it would run much faster that way than both the
individual sets
of cflocks that you've portrayed and the reality which is
sets of locks
around blocks of session accesses? As far as readonly or
exclusive goes,
then
my code very clean when I'm only
reading elements (99% of my use of session variables).
My 2 cents worth
Shawn Grover
-Original Message-
From: Raymond Camden [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 1:26 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: UDF question
(Taking off Macromedia
At 03:39 PM 3/18/2002 -0500, you wrote:
And as long as we're here, show me a single time when you don't want to
use locks around a session scope.
The client hasn't paid their bill in 6+ months, you terminated your
contract with them 2 months ago, and the client ( who still calls you every
: Howie Hamlin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 3:28 PM
Subject: Re: UDF question
This article is about memory leaks caused by bad coding. We were talking
about CFLOCKs and why the server should be doing
concurrency checking without the coder using
1) with today's computer's, the speed issue shouldn't be an
issue at all.
Unless you are doing something inside a loop over thousands
of iterations,
on multiple websites (hosted on the same server) at the same time, the
performance hit should be very minor. If you are looping
through
My ally is the Force, and a powerful ally it is. - Yoda
-Original Message-
From: Jon Hall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 3:47 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: UDF question - locking...the future...maybe...
The link was in response to the question of how future
: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Yahoo IM : morpheus
My ally is the Force, and a powerful ally it is. - Yoda
-Original Message-
From: Jon Hall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 3:47 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: UDF question - locking...the future...maybe
Matthew R. Small wrote:
Wouldn't it would run much faster that way than both the individual sets
of cflocks that you've portrayed and the reality which is sets of locks
around blocks of session accesses? As far as readonly or exclusive goes,
then shouldn't the complier be able to distinguish
mechanisms of locking
control. What really matters is picking the one that suits you, and to
write code that is in line with the decision you've made.
- Original Message -
From: junkMail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Monday, March 18, 2002 1:18 pm
Subject: Re: UDF question
With respect
-Talk
Subject: RE: UDF question
But shouldn't this whole issue be written into the server code?
Wouldn't it would run much faster that way than both the
individual sets
of cflocks that you've portrayed and the reality which is
sets of locks
around blocks of session accesses? As far
-
From: Raymond Camden [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 2:25 PM
Subject: RE: UDF question
(Taking off Macromedia cap and speaking as just one of yall...)
The question is - do you want CF to automatically handle everything for
you at the sacrifice
?
- Original Message -
From: Raymond Camden [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Monday, March 18, 2002 1:40 pm
Subject: RE: UDF question
But shouldn't this whole issue be written into the server code?
Wouldn't it would run much faster that way than both the
individual sets
of cflocks that you've portrayed
Actually, it was a question for you because if there locks should be
used in every situation then why even make it an option for the
I already answered this though - the idea is that the programmer is
better and deciding how the locks should be implemented.
programmer? And I do disagree
and a coder
thread? ;-)
Sharon
- Original Message -
From: Raymond Camden [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 3:25 PM
Subject: RE: UDF question
(Taking off Macromedia cap and speaking as just one of yall...)
The question is - do you want CF
PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: UDF question
CF is merely an abstraction of a crap load of C++ code.
I agree with you on the process that happens when you define a variable
in CF. I don't see how that absolves the programmer of coming up with
the best way of handling concurrency issues.
Regardless
PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 4:19 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: RE: UDF question
It comes down to a game:
Can the server decide the best way to lock in less time than the best
manually coded lock?
Which then boils down to:
Can the CF interpreter decide the best way to lock in less time
See below:
- Original Message -
From: Matthew R. Small [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Monday, March 18, 2002 2:33 pm
Subject: RE: UDF question
The only concurrency issues that seem to come up in CF are when we
needto single thread any piece of code - that's what the locks do.
But I
is born out by:
Assembly is faster than everything.
- Original Message -
From: Matthew R. Small [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Monday, March 18, 2002 2:39 pm
Subject: RE: RE: UDF question
You're right... it seems that the real question is whether or not the
server can determine whether
-
From: Sharon Diorio [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 3:13 PM
Subject: Re: UDF question
I'm with Raymond. It was a royal PITA to get used to locking all variable
access, but now that I'm in the habit, it isnt' that bad. Like most things,
I'll
maybe? :-)
My humble opinion.
Matt Small
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 4:38 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: RE: UDF question
See below:
- Original Message -
From: Matthew R. Small [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Monday
, 2002 3:01 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: RE: UDF question
I don't think it's a multi-threaded language because it is not possible
(to my knowledge) to start a new thread and have it run while the main
thread continues execution, then notify the main thread when it's done
executing. The fact
But that's not CFML, that's HTML. And you can't thread a separate
process to run concurrently inside the page.
-Original Message-
From: Shawn Grover [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 5:12 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: RE: UDF question
You can begin mulitple
The question is - do you want CF to automatically handle everything
for you at the sacrifice of speed?
Raymond,
My first question to you is is there ever a reason not to lock access to
Session or Application scoped variables? Personally I can't think of
one, much less one in which the
Well said.
- Matt Small
-Original Message-
From: Benjamin S. Rogers [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 5:32 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: UDF question
The question is - do you want CF to automatically handle everything
for you at the sacrifice of speed?
Raymond
implemented system, using CFLOCK for variable
access would be totally unnecessary and provide no benefit.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original Message -
From: Benjamin S. Rogers [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 4:31 PM
Subject: RE: UDF question
I don't think it's a multi-threaded language because it is
not possible (to my knowledge) to start a new thread and
have it run while the main thread continues execution, then
notify the main thread when it's done executing. The fact
that we need to be concerned about multi-threading
ally is the Force, and a powerful ally it is. - Yoda
-Original Message-
From: Howie Hamlin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2002 4:35 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: UDF question
Thanks for the reply. I wound up using:
function BasketItemCount()
{
var
Or enable Single Threaded Sessions in the CF Administrator.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original Message -
From: Raymond Camden [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2002 3:14 PM
Subject: RE: UDF question
Of course, you wan't to wrap the call to this UDF
And pay a steep price in performance...
Chuck McElwee
etech solutions inc
www.etechsolutions.com
-Original Message-
From: junkMail [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2002 4:30 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: UDF question
Or enable Single Threaded Sessions in the CF
Pay a price, yes, especially if you are using frames. But I'd not call
it a steep price.
Has anyone ran stats on this one?
-Original Message-
From: Chuck McElwee [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2002 4:43 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: UDF question
And pay a steep
Meade
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original Message -
From: Ben Forta [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2002 3:41 PM
Subject: RE: UDF question
Pay a price, yes, especially if you are using frames. But I'd not call
it a steep price.
Has anyone ran stats
1 - 100 of 105 matches
Mail list logo
