Another question when we are talking about pooling. Would it be possible to have a keepalive(=True by default to be backward compatible) parameter ? My beef is that when you have several web2py processes (especially you are connecting to a database which is not local) it is very easy to amass enough connections to run into the dreaded 'too many connections' problem as web2py never closes a database connection. Pools only exacerbate this problem as they are per process.
On Mar 1, 4:28 pm, mdipierro <[email protected]> wrote: > OK with the last suggestion. > Uploading to trunk now. Thanks Markus. > > On Mar 1, 9:19 am, Markus Gritsch <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Sun, Mar 1, 2009 at 4:05 PM, mdipierro <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > You are right but we need to keep backward compatibility. > > > > read pools as pool s. = pool size > > > Well, IMO backward campatibility cannot be used in this case to > > justify a misleading API. The parameter 'pools' is not documented in > > the book andhttp://mdp.cti.depaul.edu/AlterEgo/default/show/169 > > explicitly says "At this point the feature works but it has to be > > considered experimental and more tests are welcome." > > > So IMO it should be possible to change the API before it is officially > > documented. And even if this is not the case, maybe it would be > > possible to keep 'pools' for backwards compatibility and add a new > > parameter called 'pool_size' which gets officially documented. > > > Markus --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "web2py Web Framework" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/web2py?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
