It just seems like it wouldn't be in anyone's interest to formally specify the connection behavior of cfquery since that would mean it couldn't change in the future. Basically what I am saying is that if you are willing to give up control over the connections then you shouldn't expect the connection behavior to be specified or even consistent across releases.
-Matt On Monday, July 21, 2003, at 05:10 PM, Barney Boisvert wrote: > You are exactly correct. However, if CFQUERY provides the interface > (and I > imagine it does, it just doesn't happen to be formally specified > anywhere), > why would I want to dick around with managing my own connections? > There's a > lot of reasons I use CF and am willing to fork the cash for it instead > of > using PHP or something, and the biggest single reason is the amazingly > helpful database abstraction. > > barneyb > > --- > Barney Boisvert, Senior Development Engineer > AudienceCentral > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > voice : 360.756.8080 x12 > fax : 360.647.5351 > > www.audiencecentral.com > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Sent: Monday, July 21, 2003 1:57 PM >> To: CF-Talk >> Subject: Re: read-only SQL transactions >> >> >> It seems like one of the benefits to using cfquery as opposed to JDBC >> directly is that you don't have to deal with connection issues and >> what >> have you. It seems to me that if you need that much control over the >> connections than you should be using JDBC directly. >> >> -Matt >> >> On Monday, July 21, 2003, at 04:44 PM, Barney Boisvert wrote: >> >>> Next question: Will any other concurrently processing requests use >>> that >>> connection, or is it reserved for the exclusive use of the current >>> thread? >>> It seems to me that when a request gets a connection, it is removed >>> from the >>> pool of connections until the request is over, but like Jochem, I'm >>> quite >>> interested in a formal specification of the behaviour, one way or the >>> other. >>> >>> --- >>> Barney Boisvert, Senior Development Engineer >>> AudienceCentral >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> voice : 360.756.8080 x12 >>> fax : 360.647.5351 >>> >>> www.audiencecentral.com >>> >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Sean A Corfield [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>> Sent: Monday, July 21, 2003 1:23 PM >>>> To: CF-Talk >>>> Subject: Re: read-only SQL transactions >>>> >>>> >>>> On Monday, Jul 21, 2003, at 08:03 US/Pacific, Dave Watts wrote: >>>>>> And I believe it is currently not guaranteed that multiple >>>>>> queries from one request will use the same connection. Right? >>>>> That's an interesting question. It's my understanding that multiple >>>>> queries >>>>> using the same datasource within a single request do use the same >>>>> connection, based on conversations I've had with some MM people, >>>>> but >>>>> I >>>>> can't >>>>> say that it's definitively true. >>>> >>>> I asked the CF product team and they said: >>>> >>>> "All .cfm page requests that use the same Datasource will get the >>>> same >>>> connection back. The Connection object is stored in the Threadlocal >>>> object and reused for subsequent connection requests on the page." >>>> >>>> So it sounds like Dave's understanding is correct. >>>> >>>> Sean A Corfield -- http://www.corfield.org/blog/ >>>> >>>> "If you're not annoying somebody, you're not really alive." >>>> -- Margaret Atwood >>> --- >>> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. >>> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). >>> Version: 6.0.501 / Virus Database: 299 - Release Date: 7/14/2003 >>> >>> >> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for dependable ColdFusion Hosting. http://www.cfhosting.com Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
