I was just about to backtrack what I said as I had a closer look at the code. I see the need for a separate package, and the need to break it out of the Weblocks code base.
Is there a reason why clsql connection pool cannot be integrated into clsql itself? After all it already does some "fixes" to it (see clsql- fixes.lisp), and I would imagine most anyone using cls I'm going to transplant over the clsql connection pool change-set in my branch and try it out with my app. Yarek On Dec 23, 11:00 am, Stephen Compall <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 athttp://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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
