Yeah... simpler solution is simpler :) -- C
On 20 September 2013 17:04, Florian Apolloner <f.apollo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Friday, September 20, 2013 8:58:25 AM UTC+2, Curtis Maloney wrote: >> >> I guess the remaining question to address is : close() >> > Leave it as is I think. > > >> Thinking as I type... it wouldn't hurt, also, to allow a cache backend to >> provide an interface to a connection pool, so the manager can play friendly >> with it. If it doesn't have one, fall back to an instance-per-thread... >> this would require still hooking request complete, but not so much for >> "close" as "release". >> > > If it can be added afterwards without to much issues, I prefer to leave > APIs for connection pools out for now; since it will make the patch > smaller, which makes it easier to merge. > > Florian > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Django developers" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
