On Dec 20, 9:07 pm, "Scott L. Burson" <[email protected]> wrote: > Presumably that will get fixed, > but I'm also wondering (partly prompted by the comments > onhttp://www.cliki.net/clsql-fluid) whether CLSQL-Fluid is really the > right thing. Wouldn't something like this work just as well? If not, > why not?
I doubt that with-database is actually sufficient. http://groups.google.com/group/weblocks/msg/ebd9125eaf328e77 Has CLSQL been changed so that standard-db-objects no longer hold onto their creating connections? If not, with-database will not be sufficient. Take care when testing -- this didn't show up in casual testing. It's the kind of thing that works great until you go to production. -- Stephen Compall Greetings from sunny Appleton! -- 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.
