Re: [ANNOUNCE] Apache::Session 1.51
On Thu, Jun 01, 2000 at 01:53:10AM -0400, Robin Berjon wrote: Suggestions about making portable database test scripts are welcome. I think that DBD::CSV comes standard with DBI, would testing using that work ? It didn't come standard with my DBI (and it needs SQL::Statement and Text::CSV_XS) -- Neil Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED] Get my GnuPG key from: http://klamath.dyndns.org/mykey.asc Encrypted mail welcomed Nothing can stop the man with the right mental attitude from achieving his goal; nothing on earth can help the man with the wrong mental attitude. -- Thomas Jefferson PGP signature
Re: [ANNOUNCE] Apache::Session 1.51
At 12:25 01/06/2000 -0400, Neil Conway wrote: On Thu, Jun 01, 2000 at 01:53:10AM -0400, Robin Berjon wrote: Suggestions about making portable database test scripts are welcome. I think that DBD::CSV comes standard with DBI, would testing using that work ? It didn't come standard with my DBI (and it needs SQL::Statement and Text::CSV_XS) You're right, no DBD comes standard with it. I thought it had one for it's tests (and CSV seemed like a good candidate). -- robin b. You can tune a piano, but you can't tuna fish.
RE: [ANNOUNCE] Apache::Session 1.51
Which version of Storable module do I need for Session 1.51? Storable-0.6.11 ? it's still under beta testing. Thanks James
RE: [ANNOUNCE] Apache::Session 1.51
On Wed, 31 May 2000, James Xie wrote: Which version of Storable module do I need for Session 1.51? Storable-0.6.11 ? it's still under beta testing. Any version should work. -jwb
RE: [ANNOUNCE] Apache::Session 1.51
On Wed, 31 May 2000, James Xie wrote: Thanks. I have the storable module installed but I got the following error messages when I try to run "make test". Do I need to create the sessions database manually? I don't see it when I run the "mysqlshow" command. I have mySQL installed. The test suite is nonportable. You can safely ignore any database-related problems. Suggestions about making portable database test scripts are welcome. -jwb
RE: [ANNOUNCE] Apache::Session 1.51
The test suite is nonportable. You can safely ignore any database-related problems. Suggestions about making portable database test scripts are welcome. I think that DBD::CSV comes standard with DBI, would testing using that work ? -- robin b. In which level of metalanguage are you now speaking?
Re: [ANNOUNCE] Apache::Session 1.51
On Fri, 26 May 2000, Jeffrey W. Baker wrote: A couple of notes on the Oracle storage module: - Using "FOR UPDATE" forces the transactional lock model. Is it possible to make this optional? The other modes allow the use of a "enforce data integrity only" locking style which is sometimes needed. I'm less worried about people overwriting their own session data than I am about stale locks, although I suppose Apache::DBI's cleanup handler should take care of them. I assume that if people are using a transactional database, they are knowledgable about transactions. That's why I made the Commit argument mandatory for the Oracle and Postgres backing stores: it forces people to consider their transaction policy. My only complaint, and it's one I can easily solve by editing the source, is that I can't get the "no locks, just atomic updates" policy that I currently use in the new module, even if I use the Null locker. - Oracle (the company) says not to use LONG anymore. They are trying to move everything to CLOB/BLOB. I modified my Apache::Session::DBI to support this, which mostly involved specifying "ora_type = ORA_BLOB" in my bind variable parameters. Maybe we need and Oracle8 module, separate from the standard one? By the way, BLOBs don't work with synonyms, so you have to specify the schema name in the SQL when using them. That's lame. So, we would need to pass the schema name as an argument? Remind me again what's wrong with LONG? From my perspective, nothing at all. I think they even perform better than BLOB at the moment, at least through DBI. The problem is, Oracle is phasing them out and will eventually drop support for them entirely. They don't want to admit that BLOBs breaking synonyms is a bug either. - Perrin
Re: [ANNOUNCE] Apache::Session 1.51
On Fri, May 26, 2000 at 03:35:51PM -0700, Jeffrey W. Baker wrote:
Greetings,
I have released Apache::Session 1.51. The addition of the Oracle backing
store took less time than expected. It is included and tested in this
release. This is the only change from 1.50.
I just took a look at 1.51 (was using 1.08 before).
There seems to be a bug with Apache::Session::Store::Postgres
The pod docs suggest that this is legal:
tie %session, 'Apache::Session::Postgres', $id, {
Handle = $dbh,
Commit = 1
};
However, if Handle is present, the Commit arg is ignored. In
Apache::Session::Store::Postgres:
if (exists $session-{args}-{Handle}) {
$self-{dbh} = $session-{args}-{Handle};
return;
}
That should also set $self-{commit} = $session-{args}-{Commit} before
returning, no?
Mike
Re: [ANNOUNCE] Apache::Session 1.51
On Fri, 26 May 2000, Jeffrey W. Baker wrote: I have released Apache::Session 1.51. The addition of the Oracle backing store took less time than expected. It is included and tested in this release. This is the only change from 1.50. http://www.cpan.org/modules/by-module/Apache/Apache-Session-1.51.tar.gz This new stuff looks really good. This module has come a long way in the time I've been watching the list. A couple of notes on the Oracle storage module: - Using "FOR UPDATE" forces the transactional lock model. Is it possible to make this optional? The other modes allow the use of a "enforce data integrity only" locking style which is sometimes needed. I'm less worried about people overwriting their own session data than I am about stale locks, although I suppose Apache::DBI's cleanup handler should take care of them. - Oracle (the company) says not to use LONG anymore. They are trying to move everything to CLOB/BLOB. I modified my Apache::Session::DBI to support this, which mostly involved specifying "ora_type = ORA_BLOB" in my bind variable parameters. Maybe we need and Oracle8 module, separate from the standard one? By the way, BLOBs don't work with synonyms, so you have to specify the schema name in the SQL when using them. I know you were working on a BerkeleyDB storage module. Are you still working on it, or did you throw up your hands in disgust over the BerkeleyDB module? Although I don't have time right now, I could eventually work on this if you aren't already doing it. Finally, everybody loves benchmarks. Do you have any cool speed comparisons between the various storage and locking options? I'm sure the list would be very interested. Even better would be a little benhcmarking script that people could use on their own systems to do comparisons. - Perrin
Re: [ANNOUNCE] Apache::Session 1.51
On Fri, 26 May 2000, Perrin Harkins wrote: On Fri, 26 May 2000, Jeffrey W. Baker wrote: I have released Apache::Session 1.51. The addition of the Oracle backing store took less time than expected. It is included and tested in this release. This is the only change from 1.50. http://www.cpan.org/modules/by-module/Apache/Apache-Session-1.51.tar.gz This new stuff looks really good. This module has come a long way in the time I've been watching the list. A couple of notes on the Oracle storage module: - Using "FOR UPDATE" forces the transactional lock model. Is it possible to make this optional? The other modes allow the use of a "enforce data integrity only" locking style which is sometimes needed. I'm less worried about people overwriting their own session data than I am about stale locks, although I suppose Apache::DBI's cleanup handler should take care of them. I assume that if people are using a transactional database, they are knowledgable about transactions. That's why I made the Commit argument mandatory for the Oracle and Postgres backing stores: it forces people to consider their transaction policy. - Oracle (the company) says not to use LONG anymore. They are trying to move everything to CLOB/BLOB. I modified my Apache::Session::DBI to support this, which mostly involved specifying "ora_type = ORA_BLOB" in my bind variable parameters. Maybe we need and Oracle8 module, separate from the standard one? By the way, BLOBs don't work with synonyms, so you have to specify the schema name in the SQL when using them. That's lame. So, we would need to pass the schema name as an argument? Remind me again what's wrong with LONG? I know you were working on a BerkeleyDB storage module. Are you still working on it, or did you throw up your hands in disgust over the BerkeleyDB module? Although I don't have time right now, I could eventually work on this if you aren't already doing it. Finally, everybody loves benchmarks. Do you have any cool speed comparisons between the various storage and locking options? I'm sure the list would be very interested. Even better would be a little benhcmarking script that people could use on their own systems to do comparisons. Maybe i'll whip something up that;s portable. For benchmarks that aren't portable, check the b/ directory in the distro. -jwb
