[thelist] Looking for a simple CF-based catalog/shopping cart

[Raymond Camden]

> > And here is my main point of contention - proving the
> > cfinclude is faster than cf_ does not mean that custom
> > tags are "performance sapping" in any way.
> ><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> 
> how so?  if it takes longer for the page to render then it's somehow
> negatively affected the performance.  how else can you 
> interpret the results
> i provided of research i performed and aaron backed up with his own?
> 

It's probably how I read "sapping." I read it as it wasn't just slower,
but _damaging_ to the system. 

> ><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> > Ok, at this point, I'm probably just being
> > argumentative, but, I guess I feel the need to defend
> > what I consider to be one of the strongest features of
> > CF.
> ><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> 
> i'm *not* saying you should *never* use custom tags.  all i'm 
> saying is that
> you shouldn't pick a custom tag as the first solution.  there 
> are times
> where it's appropriate to use a custom tag, but i've seen 
> *far* too many
> circumstances where this feature has been misused to the 
> detriment of the
> performance of the site as a whole.

While I don't agree with you in general, this point is a good one, and,
to be honest, applies to everything. That doesn't mean your point isn't
valid. Before using any feature you should be aware of the
benefits/costs/etc.


> fwiw, i'm *not* trying to be argumentative.  i simply wanted 
> to offer some

I wasn't calling you that. I really wanted to make sure I wasn't coming
across that way. I probably worry about it a bit too much, but since I
work for Macromedia, I want everyone here to know that I'm not trying to
be some corp drone or anything. :>

> useful coldfusion performance-related advice.  you disagree 
> with me, despite
> the proof that i've provided that backs up my statements.  

You prooved that a call to a custom tag is slower then cfinclude. I
never disputed that. What I disputed was your contention that CTs were
bad or should not be used. As you say above, your not exactly saying
that, but you certainly think CTs are ... worse, not as good, whatever,
then I do. Which is fine... just clarifying, that's all.

> that's fine.  the
> least you could do is back up your side of the debate with 
> something more
> than opinion.  some research of your own would be nice.  *grin*
> 

Again though, I'm not disputing the speed tests, just the conclusions I
guess. 

This is probably way far anal then it needs to get... but as a very anal
person, I blame myself. ;)

Raymond Camden