I'm playing around with some application flow ideas, some likely
dangerous.
originally i wanted to do something to the effect of this- create a
customer helper method to destroy the db on a rose object
ie, this part:
bless( {
'__xrdbopriv_in_db' => 1,
'db' => bless( {
'connect_options_for' => {
'config' => {
'config' => 1
}
},
'password_closure' => sub { "DUMMY" },
'_dbh_refcount'
=> 0,
'username' =>
'NULL',
'host' =>
'localhost',
'database' =>
'NULL',
'_origin_class'
=> 'FindMeOn::RoseDB',
'domain' =>
'config',
'connect_options' => undef,
'dsn' =>
'dbi:Pg:dbname=NULL;host=localhost',
'dbh' => bless(
{}, 'Apache::DBI::db' ),
'id' =>
'configconfig',
'type' =>
'config',
'driver' => 'pg'
},
'FindMeOn::RoseDB::__RoseDBPrivate__::Rose::DB::Pg' ),
'id'=> 1,
'name'=> 'test',
}, 'FindMeOn::RoseDB::Object::UseraccountFindmeon' ),
however in posting this message , I realized that the db connect info
i'm seeing in this is from the null db connection i have as a default
object configuration. that makes most sense, as
this was a pull from a manager class-- and when I override the dbh, i
supply a new RoseDB object via this:
sub make__rose_db_obj {
my ( $dbh )= @_;
my $rdb_obj= FindMeOn::RoseDB->new();
$rdb_obj->{'dbh'}= $dbh;
return $rdb_obj;
}
Seeing all those connect and config options makes perfect sense - but
brought up some questions about rose.
And here they are:
1) Just to make sure -- are the objects returned by the manager
inheriting that particular instance of the db (including the dbh
override) ? or are they making a new class instance of the dbh ? i
know that a set of manager objects share a single db stashed in the
first item, i'm just wondering if that db object a reference to the
object the manager was called with, or a new instance of the same
class. i think its a reference to the existing object - i just want
to make sure.
2) what would be a good way to kill the db connection ? i was
thinking of a helper method as simple as this:
sub reset__db_obj {
my ( $self )= @_;
$self->db( FindMeOn::RoseDB->new() ); # this has no
valid
connectivity
}
3) what about making the get method 'dbh' a get/set?
4) this is really trivial, but what about renaming the internal
stash 'db' to __db -- i don't mean to change the accessor name, but
just where it stashes the info. all of the rose db 'operational'
data and metadata seems to be nicely stashed away to 'private'
styled names, while column names are plaintext.
thanks,
// Jonathan Vanasco
| - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
| SyndiClick.com
| - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
| FindMeOn.com - The cure for Multiple Web Personality Disorder
| Web Identity Management and 3D Social Networking
| - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
| RoadSound.com - Tools For Bands, Stuff For Fans
| Collaborative Online Management And Syndication Tools
| - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security?
Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier.
Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo
http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642
_______________________________________________
Rose-db-object mailing list
Rose-db-object@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rose-db-object
