On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 10:54:36PM -0400, John Siracusa wrote: > Keep in mind that if you replace My::Product in that post with > My::DB::Object, which is a common base class for all your RDBO-derived > objects, then you effectively get one connection shared by all objects from > all tables. Dunno if that's something you're interested in, but I just > wanted to point it out.
Hi John, Yes, I understood that part, thanks. I was just wondering if I was missing some key point. I supposes it's just because that's how Rose::DB works. I would expect that most applications need a shared dbh -- anything that uses transactions, of course. And, therefore perhaps there was a standard approach. Speaking of transactions -- anyone ever asked for nested transaction support? Not in the db (like savepoints) but at the application layer. So more complex code that's done in do_transaction can call code that also does do_transaction. > > What about using Ima::DBI? Would that stomp on RDB? > > I doubt it. A Rose::DB object shouldn't care much what class its dbh is, so > long as it acts appropriately like a plain DBI dbh. Ok, I'll give that a try. I don't want to use Apache::DBI because the I have a few other RDBO concepts I'm grappling with. But those can wait. -- Bill Moseley [EMAIL PROTECTED] ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ Rose-db-object mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rose-db-object
