p.s. I've just gotten a notice on Facebook to remind me its James Allen's birthday so a big sloppy kiss for James.
Sir Rawlins wrote: > Hello Chaps, > > I've got a scenario here where I provide a collection of objects over > a webservice. Now the objects can be substantial in size due to the > binary data that they contain (several Mb sometimes) so my use case > defines that I should only supply the object over the webservice if > its content has been altered since it was last collected by the > client, this is due to the high frequency of calls from the client and > wanting to minimize overhead and bandwidth. > > At the moment I have a rather messy solution where I keep a boolean > column on the tables which gets updated to true if the content has > been modified, however this becomes complicated as the composition of > objects grows and I have to remember to flag objects parents as > modified when their children are modified, with an ever growing object > tree this is breaking my balls. > > To be frank I'm kind of getting bored of it and at the moment I'm > thinking a simpler and less code intensive method to solve the issue > is the serialization of the objects and creating a checksum for the > collection. > > This way when the client requests the collection from the webservice > it gets the data handed to it along with an MD5 hash for the > collection. Then, when next making a call the client gives that MD5 > hash to the server in its request, the package is built on the server > and hashed, if the two hashes match then the package content has not > changed and nothing needs to be sent back to the client, however, if > the hashes do differ then the package content can be returned over the > service. > > Now, My initial thoughts on this were to simply create a string out of > the getPropertyMomento() struct and then hash it, however I don't > think this will work when we have collections of composed objects > within one another. > > Do you think this approach is a good way to tackle the challenge? if > so then how would you go about the serialization of the object? It > doesn't appear that CF has any native features built into its objects > to support this, have we got any sexy hacks using metadata or > something? > > Many thanks guys, appreciate your opinions as always. > > Rob --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
