I've never really understood people's aversion to using the server scope... it's no different than application and session and is there to be used for just exactly this sort of situation.
Can you go into why you don't like it a bit? I'm trying to get my head around this. J On Nov 28, 2008, at 11:27 AM, Stephen Moretti wrote: > > > 2008/11/28 Bob Silverberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Or you could keep the transfer instances as is, and specify SERVER as > the caching scope for each. Another way of accomplishing the same > thing as suggested by Chris. I'm not sure what the trade-offs would > be between those two approaches. > > Yeah - I was kinda trying to avoid using the server scope. I've > never been terribly happy with sticking stuff in the server scope, > but perhaps this is the way to go with this. > > Thanks guys. > > Stephen --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Before posting questions to the group please read: http://groups.google.com/group/transfer-dev/web/how-to-ask-support-questions-on-transfer You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "transfer-dev" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/transfer-dev?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
