-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Wed, Aug 14, 2002 at 01:52:06PM -0400, Paul Vallee wrote: > I'm dying to start using prepare_cached, but thus far the risk has always > seemed too great. I never heard about this again after this discussion, and > I'm not aware of any resolution or any version of DBI in which > prepare_cached is safe.
Who said prepare_cached wasn't safe? You seem to be expecting DBI to resolve this, but it can't. This is a very application-dependent issue and thus any resolution should go there. The option is there for DBI to go hands-off and let the application handle it, but 98% of apps can probably just s/prepare/prepare_cached/g their code and be done with it. As was originally noted, this was a very bizarre case that occured purely by chance. In any case, I think you're reading way too much into the original issue. The best thing to do would be to just try it and see. - -- Stephen Clouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Senior Programmer, IQ Coordinator Project Lead The IQ Group, Inc. <http://www.theiqgroup.com/> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE9WqQFA4aoazQ9p2cRAm9qAJ4t57khJ2yIsjJ5i6c+EmdUNCMF/wCg+ZRs Ek6yPkOGcSR8nlBb37Tar+A= =j2Eq -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
