As far as I know connect_cached didn't show up untill latest versions
of DBI. And unfortunately our production services don't use those
versions.
Though there's still a disclaimer saying that the behaviour is subject
to change. Whatever. Can't I simply get rid of Apache::DBI since DBI
itself offers almost the same thing?
Andrei
On Sun, Dec 05, 1999 at 06:27:50PM -0800, Jeffrey W. Baker wrote:
> Tim Bunce wrote:
>
> > > I've always thought the "must load Apache::DBI before DBI" thing was a
> > > bit weird anyway. Can't you just make it a flag that DBI looks at
> > > that Apache::DBI sets?
> >
> > The idea was to avoid run-time overhead by setting things up a
> > compile time.
> >
> > I guess I could add something like this:
> >
> > DBI->default_connect_method("Apache::DBI::connect");
> >
> > which Apache::DBI could call, after a "use DBI;", to get itself
> > plugged in.
>
> Ew. That is pegging my wankometer. Doesn't connect_cached do the same
> thing that most of Apache::DBI does? Why doesn't Apache::DBI just
> inherit everything but connect() and disconnect() from DBI?
>
> IMHO Apache::DBI causes more problems than it solves with it's
> "transparent" replacement of DBI functions. Can anyone point to an
> example where a subclass of DBI would not do everything that Apache::DBI
> does, except without the headaches?
>
> -jwb
--
