Yeah... simpler solution is simpler :) -- C
On 20 September 2013 17:04, Florian Apolloner <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Friday, September 20, 2013 8:58:25 AM UTC+2, Curtis Maloney wrote: >> >> I guess the remaining question to address is : close() >> > Leave it as is I think. > > >> Thinking as I type... it wouldn't hurt, also, to allow a cache backend to >> provide an interface to a connection pool, so the manager can play friendly >> with it. If it doesn't have one, fall back to an instance-per-thread... >> this would require still hooking request complete, but not so much for >> "close" as "release". >> > > If it can be added afterwards without to much issues, I prefer to leave > APIs for connection pools out for now; since it will make the patch > smaller, which makes it easier to merge. > > Florian > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Django developers" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
