On 18/01/2011 19:24, John Scoles wrote:
On 18/01/2011 9:47 AM, Martin J. Evans wrote:
On 18/01/11 14:11, John Scoles wrote:
On 18/01/2011 8:35 AM, Martin J. Evans wrote:
John,
I slightly reformatted you reply as you added comments on the end
of lines I wrote which made it look like I said
On 18/01/2011 9:47 AM, Martin J. Evans wrote:
On 18/01/11 14:11, John Scoles wrote:
On 18/01/2011 8:35 AM, Martin J. Evans wrote:
John,
I slightly reformatted you reply as you added comments on the end of lines I
wrote which made it look like I said them.
On 18/01/11 12:40, John Scoles wr
On 18/01/11 15:29, John Scoles wrote:
> On 18/01/2011 9:47 AM, Martin J. Evans wrote:
>> On 18/01/11 14:11, John Scoles wrote:
>>> On 18/01/2011 8:35 AM, Martin J. Evans wrote:
John,
I slightly reformatted you reply as you added comments on the end of lines
I wrote which mad
On 18/01/2011 9:47 AM, Martin J. Evans wrote:
Just as a Side note seems execute_array was added well after the first
DBI spec was written.
DBI 1.24,4th June 2002 seems to be the correct date rather a late
addition.
Cheers
John
On 18/01/11 14:11, John Scoles wrote:
On 18/01/2011 8:3
On 18/01/2011 9:47 AM, Martin J. Evans wrote:
On 18/01/11 14:11, John Scoles wrote:
On 18/01/2011 8:35 AM, Martin J. Evans wrote:
John,
I slightly reformatted you reply as you added comments on the end of lines I
wrote which made it look like I said them.
On 18/01/11 12:40, John Scoles wr
On 18/01/11 14:11, John Scoles wrote:
> On 18/01/2011 8:35 AM, Martin J. Evans wrote:
>> John,
>>
>> I slightly reformatted you reply as you added comments on the end of lines I
>> wrote which made it look like I said them.
>>
>> On 18/01/11 12:40, John Scoles wrote:
>>> On 17/01/2011 3:34 PM, Ma
On 18/01/2011 8:35 AM, Martin J. Evans wrote:
John,
I slightly reformatted you reply as you added comments on the end of lines I
wrote which made it look like I said them.
On 18/01/11 12:40, John Scoles wrote:
On 17/01/2011 3:34 PM, Martin J. Evans wrote:
There appear to be differences betw
John,
I slightly reformatted you reply as you added comments on the end of lines I
wrote which made it look like I said them.
On 18/01/11 12:40, John Scoles wrote:
> On 17/01/2011 3:34 PM, Martin J. Evans wrote:
>> There appear to be differences between DBDs which do not handle
>> execute_array
On 18/01/2011 7:52 AM, H.Merijn Brand wrote:
On Tue, 18 Jan 2011 07:40:25 -0500, John Scoles
wrote:
On 17/01/2011 3:34 PM, Martin J. Evans wrote:
There appear to be differences between DBDs which do not handle
execute_array (so DBI does it for them) and DBDs which do handle
execute_array (
On Tue, 18 Jan 2011 07:40:25 -0500, John Scoles
wrote:
> On 17/01/2011 3:34 PM, Martin J. Evans wrote:
> > There appear to be differences between DBDs which do not handle
> > execute_array (so DBI does it for them) and DBDs which do handle
> > execute_array (e.g., DBD::Oracle). The main ones
On 17/01/2011 3:34 PM, Martin J. Evans wrote:
There appear to be differences between DBDs which do not handle
execute_array (so DBI does it for them) and DBDs which do handle
execute_array (e.g., DBD::Oracle). The main ones discussed on
#dbix-class which I investigated are whether the driver s
On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 04:45:52PM +0100, H.Merijn Brand wrote:
>
> Yes, the *DBD::Oracle* README. I know, I found it there, but I was more
> looking for guides from DBI. Does DBI document that DBU_USER/DBI_PASS
> would somehow overrule other (default) settings?
DBI_USER and DBI_PASS are applied
12 matches
Mail list logo
