2008/10/6 William Dode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> On 04-10-2008, Graham Dumpleton wrote:
>>
>> BTW, if I am right, you would see the behaviour you expect to see if you use:
>>
>> WSGIApplicationGroup %{GLOBAL}
>
> More or less, it give me alternatively two differents local instances...
Sorry, don't understand how that could be at present. What do you get
corresponding to each request when you also output debugging:
print >> sys.stderr, environ.get('mod_wsgi.process_group')
print >> sys.stderr, environ.get('mod_wsgi.application_group')
print >> sys.stderr, environ.get('wsgi.multithread')
print >> sys.stderr, environ.get('wsgi.multiprocess')
print >> sys.stderr, threading.currentThread()
Want to determine if your configuration might still actually be
multithreaded or even multiprocess.
What is the Apache/mod_wsgi configuration you are using? Ie.,
prefork/worker MPM, daemon mode, how many processes/threads.
Graham
> But i'm agree with your analyze, that to use threading.local is not
> reliable. It's ok to keep the connection for the time of the request but
> not for a persistent pool between requests. It's just to know about it.
>
> The only problem is that there is not a lot of db pool utilities and
> dbutils is one of the most famous...
>
> --
> William Dodé - http://flibuste.net
> Informaticien Indépendant
>
>
> >
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"modwsgi" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/modwsgi?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
