On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 05:29:06PM -0400, Steven N. Hirsch wrote: > On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Tim Bunce wrote: > > > On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 09:50:21AM -0400, Steven N. Hirsch wrote: > > > > > > Tim, > > > > > > I plan to beat on this over the next few days. However, here are two > > > small changes which I've found to be necessary when working with a DB2 > > > backend database. Since making these mods all ugly messages are a thing > > > of the past. > > > > > > In my opinion, it's time to throw in the towel and report the true > > > 'Active' status back to the proxy client with every call. > > > > I'd *really* like to know under what circumstances the Active status > > gets out of sync. > > It seems related to stored procedure calls, IIRC. I fought with this > several months ago and ended up with the hacks below. My problems are > very likely due to inconsistancies between DB2 CLI behavior and what one > would think was the obvious <g>.
Very likely :) But until we know what I'd still be tempted to say that the problem lies with DBD::DB2 more than DBD::Proxy. > > > I'm getting > > > hammered at work, but will attempt to code this up "Real Soon Now" <g>. > > > > Any patch to report the server-side active status needs to a) gracefully > > handle client-server version mismatches, and b) ideally implement a more > > flexible protocol in general so that new features can be added and version > > mismatches more gracefully handled in future. > > I agree 100%. The existing communications protocol is a fragile, > hard-to-maintain mess. This is why I've been putting off a permanent fix. > > Do you agree that the move to something more elegant should involve a > different set of method names? For the rpc logic, yes. Seems like the best way to make a fresh start. > That's the only way to avoid breaking > older code (unless I'm missing the obvious). Tim.
