Thanks for the clarification, but I gotta say, if it's just legacy thinking... like... get over it dude! ;)
Seriously, I've been looking for a chance to use the server scope for ages, but the projects I've been working on just haven't really warranted it. I was helping someone with a container manager for ColdSpring that would wire all your parent beanfactories together, but there were issues with it based on how they had things set up (because of their configuration, not because of the idea) and we aborted just as it was getting done. I wouldn't recommend using it frivolously, but hell, for the things that you need it for, that's why it's there, yanno? J On Nov 29, 2008, at 3:11 PM, Stephen Moretti wrote: > 2008/11/28 Jared Rypka-Hauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > 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. > > I suspect its legacy thinking, old habits and all that, dating > back to the C++ versions of CF and prior to cflock and internal > locking. Its a long time ago now, but I vaguely recall the server > scope being even more flaky than application and session. ~shrug~ > I think it is as simple as that. > > 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 transfer-dev@googlegroups.com 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
