Yarek Kowalik <[email protected]> writes: > I see no reason why Weblocks would not benefit from having the > connection pool changes integrated - I don't think we need a separate > (and thus optional) package.
It's not fair to only consider Weblocks—if the changes are not Weblocks-specific, but rather, useful to all CLSQL users who are also using threads, then non-Weblocks CLSQL users would benefit from the connection pool implementation. The big hint is that svg chose to put the bulk of code in a separate ASDF system. -- I write stuff at http://failex.blogspot.com/ now. But the post formatter and themes are terrible for sharing code, the primary content, so it might go away sooner or later. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "weblocks" 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/weblocks?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
