Perrin Harkins wrote:
My point was that Apache::DBI already gives you persistent connections,
and when people say they want actual pooled connections instead they
usually don't have a good reason for it.
Let's say that I have 20 customers, each of whom has a database schema
for their data.
According to David E. Wheeler:
Perrin Harkins wrote:
My point was that Apache::DBI already gives you persistent connections,
and when people say they want actual pooled connections instead they
usually don't have a good reason for it.
Let's say that I have 20 customers, each of whom
-Original Message-
From: Perrin Harkins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 11 October 2000 04:45
To: Ajit Deshpande
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Wild Proposal :)
Hi Ajit,
It's not entirely clear to me what problem you're trying to
solve here.
I'll comment on some
On Wed, 11 Oct 2000, Stephen Anderson wrote:
There's DBI::Proxy already. Before jumping on the "we need pooled
connections" bandwagon, you should read Jeffrey Baker's post on the
subject here:
http://forum.swarthmore.edu/epigone/modperl/breetalwox/38B4DB3F.612476CE@acm
.org
People
The following is a half-baked proposal for a wild idea. Please comment on
this. If the powers that be think this is OT, then please move this I
will take it elsewhere.
If this is something that is already implemented by 'Application Foo' or
'System Bar' then please let me know and you will hear
Hi Ajit,
It's not entirely clear to me what problem you're trying to solve here.
I'll comment on some of the specifics you've written down here, but I
may be missing your larger point.
OBJECTIVE
Provide a perl server that can execute miscellaneous perl jobs that
will communicate with
