> Not entirely sure why you've replaced all locking with SERVER
> rather than named locks. Surely this is likely to significantly
> increase the chance of contention throughout the application?
>
> I'd agree much of the locking throughout Spectra was inconsistent.
> Just wondering really what the thinking was behind this fairly
> significant set of modifications.
It has been my understanding, based on what information Allaire/MM provided
about locking, that you'd have to lock the Server scope itself if you're
using any variables within that scope - that is, if you simply created a
name that you used whenever accessing one nested structure within the Server
scope, the lock would be ineffective since other code might access other
nested structures within the Server scope, and what really needed protection
was the base structure itself.
I certainly agree that this will increase contention, and would be happy to
be completely wrong about my understanding of locking.
Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
http://www.figleaf.com/
voice: (202) 797-5496
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Unsubscribe visit
http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists&body=lists/spectra_talk or send a
message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with 'unsubscribe' in the body.
