There is a major difference in how Railo addresses structs in comparison to the CFML standard. The result is that implicit addressing, (as I call it) works in the CFML standard but not in Railo. This is an issue we are long aware of AND we will NOT fix it.
Caching queries is something that one should use since it can dramatically speed up the delivery of a page.
Discussions with clients revealed that there is a general misunderstanding about the timeout setting in the definitions of scheduled tasks.
Today another performance comparison was posted in a private blog.
A major disadvantage of generated code is the size of the generated html. When you have something like <cfscript> this may not be an issue since the complete code generates no output unless you use something like echo() or writeOutput().
A thing I noticed while playing with some performance tests is that MX has a strange behaviour when caching queries. Well in fact I guess it is not strange but worth mentioning.
We have intercepted a message addressed to headquarters telling us some strange but interesting things might happen towards the end of May '007
somewhere in Scottland. All we found out was that a conference Scotch on the rocks '007
will take place on May, 31 and June 1. We decided to send Sean Bont, a Bont Girl and Kiu to attend the conference.
Why not?
Mark Drew started a small test comparing the different engines in terms of performance. Since some of the engines did not finish as good as expected, the comments on the blog entry reflected that atomar tests are not so significant and a real field test should be done.
This was something that Vince Bonfanti proposed and done this week. The results can be read in Vince's blog. A couple of people wanted Railo to be compared to the other engines as well. So I used the same code Vince used in order to test the performance of Railo in comparison to the other engines.
