[CDBI] Class::DBI vs DBIx::Class

Matt S Trout dbix-class at trout.me.uk
Wed Jan 18 01:21:13 GMT 2006


On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 12:56:15AM +0000, Tim Bunce wrote:
> =item B<3>: The existing active statement handle will be removed from the
> cache and a new statement handle prepared and cached in its place.
> This is the safest option because it doesn't affect the state of the
> old handle, it just removes it from the cache. [Added in DBI 1.40]

Aha. I misread that the last time I looked at the docs. Added to the current
development branch of DBIx::Class - if nobody gets a barf during the RCs it'll
be in 0.05.

> DBI 1.40 was released in January 2004.
> 
> Class::DBI and DBIx::Class (and others) should probably be passing 3
> for the $if_active parameter. Set it and forget it.

Still doesn't help the problem I had, which was a broken DBD. My point was
more that customising this in Class::DBI is a complete pain (we eventually
just shipped customers a patched Ima::DBI) whereas in DBIx::Class you can
just subclass storage, override ->sth and get on with your life. I'm
already aware of a DBIx::Class user making use of this ability to get
round issues with bind parameter support in FreeTDS.

-- 
     Matt S Trout       Offering custom development, consultancy and support
  Technical Director    contracts for Catalyst, DBIx::Class and BAST. Contact
Shadowcat Systems Ltd.  mst (at) shadowcatsystems.co.uk for more information

 + Help us build a better perl ORM: http://dbix-class.shadowcatsystems.co.uk/ +




More information about the ClassDBI mailing list