Graham Barr wrote on 8/18/07 8:13 AM:
> 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.
>
Awhile back I posted code that cached the DBI handle and re-used that, based on
the domain/type/dsn of the Rose::DB object being requested.
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lang.perl.modules.dbi.rose-db-object/1794/focus=1802
What I hear you saying, Graham, is that it is a better idea to cache the
Rose::DB object itself and not the DBI object it holds.
Given that caching of database connections (either by caching Rose::DB objects
or the DBI objects they hold) is an oft-repeated thread on this list, and given
that John (quite rightly imo) doesn't want to put the caching behaviour into
Rose::DB, I wonder if it would be worthwhile to have a Rose::DB::Persistent
(Rose::DB::Cached?) subclass that does have smart object caching by default.
Guess it would properly belong in the Rose::DBx namespace (or whatever that
ended up being called).
So I could get all the caching goodness just by doing:
use base qw( Rose::DBx::Cached );
instead of:
use base qw( Rose::DB );
and everything would Just Work the Same, except my db connections would be
cached.
I just know that I need connection caching, preferably at the Rose level, since
I use Catalyst a lot and it is nice to move from the Cat dev server to Apache
and back without needing to worry about Apache::DBI or some other
server-dependent code.
I'd be happy to take a first stab at such a module, if folks think it is a
worthwhile idea. It sounds like enough folks have written their own caching
logic into their RDBO projects that it's a wheel in want of invention, and it
seems like having a 'standard' way to get the caching effect would be a
worthwhile thing.
Thoughts?
--
Peter Karman . http://peknet.com/ . [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
