Specifying that the behaviour is undefined is a perfectly valid end, and I'd then have to make the choice about managing the connections directly or some other solution. But if I don't have to, that'd be great. I'm a lazy bitch, after all ;)
Being able to rely on CF's behaviour (or even knowing that I can't rely on it) is all I'm looking for, rather than the "well, it makes sense they'd do it this way, but no one knows" that there is right now. I asked this question several months ago, and got nothing out of it. Jochem got a very good first half of the response from Sean, I was hoping for the second half. cheers, barneyb PS: To avoid any potential misunderstandings such as those that have been exemplified recently on this list, that emoticon at the end of the first paragraph was in fact a humorous one, indicating that I laugh at myself for being a lazy bitch. --- 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 2:23 PM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: Re: read-only SQL transactions > > > 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 Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
