On May 18, 2006, at 7:34 PM, Bill Moseley wrote:
My transactions are all inside eval with a rollback (the modified
do_transaction() code). Is there a situation that the transaction
would not get rolled back and still have the apache child alive to do
the cleanup?
i've had apache die and not r
On Thu, 2006-05-18 at 16:34 -0700, Bill Moseley wrote:
> My transactions are all inside eval with a rollback (the modified
> do_transaction() code). Is there a situation that the transaction
> would not get rolled back and still have the apache child alive to do
> the cleanup?
You should be okay.
On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 07:28:21PM -0400, Perrin Harkins wrote:
> It's not that anything bad happens when you use Apache::DBI, but rather
> that the automatic rollbacks that Apache::DBI normally does for you will
> not work when you use Class::DBI. If you are absolutely certain that
> there's no w
On Thu, 2006-05-18 at 16:20 -0700, Bill Moseley wrote:
> > That's one problem. Another one is that Apache::DBI's safety rollback
> > is prevented from happening because Class::DBI not calling connect() on
> > every request. You may or may not need that, depending on how you use
> > transactions.
On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 07:05:13PM -0400, Perrin Harkins wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-05-18 at 15:57 -0700, Bill Moseley wrote:
> > It's been a while since I looked at this. Isn't this just a problem
> > when creating the connection before forking?
>
> That's one problem. Another one is that Apache::DB
On Thu, 2006-05-18 at 15:57 -0700, Bill Moseley wrote:
> It's been a while since I looked at this. Isn't this just a problem
> when creating the connection before forking?
That's one problem. Another one is that Apache::DBI's safety rollback
is prevented from happening because Class::DBI not cal
On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 09:12:49AM -0400, Perrin Harkins wrote:
> Jonathan wrote:
> >doing some searches online, I found some issues with mod_perl and
> >Class::DBI from about a year ago -- does anyone know if they're still
> >around or if they've been solved?
>
> They were solved back then. Yo
On May 18, 2006, at 10:27 AM, Perrin Harkins wrote:
Eose::DB::Object and DBIx::Class make more efficient use of
database calls than Class::DBI does. You can see a benchmark
written by the Rose::DB::Object author here:
http://rose.sourceforge.net/wiki/index.php/RDBO/Benchmark
You had me a
On Thu, 18 May 2006, Perrin Harkins wrote:
> Enno wrote:
> > in my experience, Class::DBI is slow and a memory hog, allthough I must
> > admit that those problems might be related to the implementation of the
> > app that uses Class::DBI here, instead of CDBI itself...
>
> Of course it's slow com
Enno wrote:
in my experience, Class::DBI is slow and a memory hog, allthough I must
admit that those problems might be related to the implementation of the
app that uses Class::DBI here, instead of CDBI itself...
Of course it's slow compared to just using DBI. Any ORM would be. I
doubt it us
On Thu, 18 May 2006, Perrin Harkins wrote:
> Jonathan wrote:
> > doing some searches online, I found some issues with mod_perl and
> > Class::DBI from about a year ago -- does anyone know if they're still
> > around or if they've been solved?
>
> They were solved back then. You do have to overri
Jonathan wrote:
doing some searches online, I found some issues with mod_perl and
Class::DBI from about a year ago -- does anyone know if they're still
around or if they've been solved?
They were solved back then. You do have to override the connection
handling when using Class::DBI with mod
i'm running really behind schedule on something, so i need to use an
ORM to get it off the ground quick ( i generally hate them and prefer
pure sql)
doing some searches online, I found some issues with mod_perl and
Class::DBI from about a year ago -- does anyone know if they're still
aro
13 matches
Mail list logo
