Here are my thoughts for revisions: * I'm not sure ping()ing belongs here at all, at least as an auto-called method. But if we do add it, we should use DBI's ping() method rather than trying to roll our own. (As an example, "select 1" doesn't work in every database, and sometimes even when it does it's not the best choice.)
* Fewer methods relating to caching. Initially, it should just be a ping() object method (maybe) and new_or_cached() and clear_db_cache() class methods. * The cache key should be type and domain and that's it. * Modifying a registry entry should invalidate the cached instance of the db for that type/domain. What I'm trying to do here is start small. If we eventually want to get into TTL and stuff like that, I'm inclined to go to a mix-in class that delegates all caching to a "real" caching module like Cache::Cache. But for a first try at this, I'd like to avoid painting ourselves into a corner. So, keep it simple :) I can do the revisions if you want, or you can have a shot at it. Let me know. -John ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Rose-db-object@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rose-db-object
