On Aug 17, 2007, at 3:53 PM, John Siracusa wrote:
>>> Finally, I suppose I could change the default implementation of
>>> init_db() to be more like this instead:
>>>
>>> sub init_db { $DB ||= Rose::DB->new }
>>>
>>> But that'd be quite a behavior change, and it'd have its own set
>>> of problems.
>>
>> What are the problems here? Since I adopted this for the time
>> being it
>> would be nice to know what I have to expect...
>
> I just meant that it'd be a change in historic behavior that could
> break some people's code when they upgrade (not that RDBO is 1.0 yet,
> but it's still nice to avoid this kind of thing, if possible).
Right. It would be a problem for people that use connections to
multiple databases from within the same application.
If you are going to cache the Rose::DB object, you need to be smart
and make sure you are returning a Rose::DB object that was requested,
not just the previous on created.
Graham.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc.
Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop.
Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser.
Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/
_______________________________________________
Rose-db-object mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rose-db-object
