On 10/28/2007 05:11 PM, John Siracusa wrote:
> +
> + my $db = $class->new(%args);
> + $class->db_cache->{$key} = $db;
>
> Is this how we want to handle new() with args beyond type and domain? Or is
> this more appropriate?
>
> + if (exists $class->db_cache->{$key})
> + {
> + my $db = $class->db_cache->{$key};
> + $db->init(%args);
> + return $db;
> + }
>
> Or maybe it croaks if additional args are present instead? Opinions?
>
calling init() on the cached $db is the behaviour I would init[ially] expect.
Not sure, though, if it's really a set-up for user disaster. I can easily
imagine being tripped by unexpected behaviour in getting cached $db objects if,
for example, I set one option in %args in one call to new_or_cached() and then
forget it was set the next time I called new_or_cached(). Caveat User. But
there's really no sane way to key the cache on anything beyond type+domain
since any given $db flag could be set after retrieving it from the cache.
"Action at a distance" kind of behaviour which can be both useful and
error-prone depending on how it gets [ab]used. In that sense, I can see why
croak() would be a safer default behaviour.
I vote for croak().
--
Peter Karman . [EMAIL PROTECTED] . http://peknet.com/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
