On 4/20/07, Bill Moseley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Apr 19, 2007 at 04:59:18PM -0400, John Siracusa wrote:
The full DBI trace output is included below. I don't see multiple
disconnects (or any disconnects, really) in the output, so I'm pretty sure
it's only using one $dbh.
It's the
On 4/18/07, Bill Moseley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This works fine in my base class:
sub init_db { our $DBH =|| App::RDB-new }
I've got the same $dbh for the life of the program.
But, I'd like to try using DBI-connect_cached directly.
What's your goal? Do you still want just one $dbh
On Thu, Apr 19, 2007 at 10:35:16AM -0400, John Siracusa wrote:
On 4/18/07, Bill Moseley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This works fine in my base class:
sub init_db { our $DBH =|| App::RDB-new }
I've got the same $dbh for the life of the program.
But, I'd like to try using
On 4/19/07, Bill Moseley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Apr 19, 2007 at 10:35:16AM -0400, John Siracusa wrote:
On 4/18/07, Bill Moseley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This works fine in my base class:
sub init_db { our $DBH =|| App::RDB-new }
I've got the same $dbh for the life of the program.
On Thu, Apr 19, 2007 at 02:48:24PM -0400, John Siracusa wrote:
Okay, so:
our $DB;
sub init_db
{
...
my $dbh = DBI-connect_cached(@params);
return $DB = App::RDB-new(dbh = $dbh) unless($DB);
$DB-dbh($dbh);
return $DB;
}
I'm still seeing
Given this code:
package A;
use base 'Rose::DB::Object';
__PACKAGE__-meta-setup(table = 't1', columns = [ qw(id a) ]);
our $DB;
sub init_db
{
my $dbh = DBI-connect_cached('DBI:mysql:test', 'root');
return $DB = Rose::DB-new(driver = 'mysql', dbh = $dbh) unless($DB);
On Thu, Apr 19, 2007 at 04:59:18PM -0400, John Siracusa wrote:
The full DBI trace output is included below. I don't see multiple
disconnects (or any disconnects, really) in the output, so I'm pretty
sure it's only using one $dbh.
It's the Manager that seems to be closing the connection.
On Apr 19, 2007, at 9:37 PM, Bill Moseley wrote:
It's the Manager that seems to be closing the connection.
Perhaps I'm using it incorrectly?
I don't really know what I'm talking about here, but in our Rose::DB
class[1] we have this,
sub DESTROY { } # Avoid disconnect being called
(the
On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 10:54:36PM -0400, John Siracusa wrote:
What about using Ima::DBI? Would that stomp on RDB?
I doubt it. A Rose::DB object shouldn't care much what class its dbh is, so
long as it acts appropriately like a plain DBI dbh.
Sorry, just getting back to this.
I'm missing
On 4/16/07, Tim Bunce [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If there's an exception, I believe DBI issues a rollback automatically,
Nope.
Yes, I was looking at the DESTROY code, not the error handling code.
I was talking to Bill about this off-list and he showed me a case
where my strategy fails. It
On Sat, Apr 14, 2007 at 12:41:55AM -0400, Perrin Harkins wrote:
If you have one sub:
do_stuff_and_send_mail {
{
local $dbh-{AutoCommit} = 0;
$object-do_stuff;
} # commit (unless nested)
send_mail( do_stuff happened! );
}
On 4/13/07, Ovid [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- Bill Moseley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would expect that most applications need a shared dbh -- anything
that uses transactions, of course. And, therefore perhaps there was a
standard approach.
You know, I was rather surprised about that myself.
On 4/13/07, Bill Moseley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, for example, in Catalyst in an end() (or something at the end) you
would look for errors and then do a rollback, otherwise commit? And
you look at AutoCommit to see if you need to do either of those, I
assume.
No, it's much simpler than
Ok, I just have to ask. What are people doing for dbh caching?
I know this comes up often:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lang.perl.modules.dbi.rose-db-object/1138/focus=1140
Apache::DBI is mentioned, but, unless I'm mistaken, is limited to
mod_perl environments. Can just save $DBH
Bill Moseley scribbled on 4/12/07 9:11 PM:
Ok, I just have to ask. What are people doing for dbh caching?
I know this comes up often:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lang.perl.modules.dbi.rose-db-object/1138/focus=1140
here's my (admittedly buggy) code for doing this. It caches
On 4/12/07 10:11 PM, Bill Moseley wrote:
Ok, I just have to ask. What are people doing for dbh caching?
I know this comes up often:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lang.perl.modules.dbi.rose-db-object/1138/f
ocus=1140
[...] I'm also still trying to understand the point of a new dbh
On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 10:54:36PM -0400, John Siracusa wrote:
Keep in mind that if you replace My::Product in that post with
My::DB::Object, which is a common base class for all your RDBO-derived
objects, then you effectively get one connection shared by all objects from
all tables. Dunno if
On 4/12/07, Bill Moseley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Speaking of transactions -- anyone ever asked for nested transaction
support?
We had a semi-long discussion about that a few weeks back, which you
can find in the archives.
What about using Ima::DBI? Would that stomp on RDB?
You'd probably
On 4/12/07, Peter Karman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
here's my (admittedly buggy) code for doing this. It caches a single dbh for
each unique RDB registry entry combination of domain.type.dsn. I know that it
breaks under mod_perl -- anyone spot why? (the error I get is from Pg:
prepared
On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 11:59:55PM -0400, Perrin Harkins wrote:
On 4/12/07, Bill Moseley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Speaking of transactions -- anyone ever asked for nested transaction
support?
We had a semi-long discussion about that a few weeks back, which you
can find in the archives.
20 matches
Mail list logo
