On 2012-03-23, at 2:37 PM, John Huss wrote:
> >>> Cayenne supports this kind of concurrency and will utilize multiple
> >>> connections to the database without requiring a duplicate stack like EOF
> >>> does. So for concurrency it is a much better choice than EOF. And it's
> >>> easy to get
>
> >>> Cayenne supports this kind of concurrency and will utilize multiple
> connections to the database without requiring a duplicate stack like EOF
> does. So for concurrency it is a much better choice than EOF. And it's
> easy to get started if you're familiar with EOF already. It can be us
On Friday, March 23, 2012, Mai Nguyen wrote:
> Hi John,
> I am just curious:
> Is it possible to run EOF and Cayenne side by side in the same WO app, or
does one have to switch over completely to Cayenne?
Yes, although you'd want to name your entity classes differently so you
could keep them stra
Hi John,
I am just curious:
Is it possible to run EOF and Cayenne side by side in the same WO app, or does
one have to switch over completely to Cayenne?
thanks,
mai
On Mar 23, 2012, at 10:56 AM, John Huss wrote:
> Cayenne supports this kind of concurrency and will utilize multiple
> connectio
On 2012-03-23, at 11:07 AM, Pascal Robert wrote:
>
> Le 2012-03-23 à 14:05, Chuck Hill a écrit :
>
>>
>> On 2012-03-23, at 10:56 AM, John Huss wrote:
>>
>>> Cayenne supports this kind of concurrency and will utilize multiple
>>> connections to the database without requiring a duplicate stack
Le 2012-03-23 à 14:05, Chuck Hill a écrit :
>
> On 2012-03-23, at 10:56 AM, John Huss wrote:
>
>> Cayenne supports this kind of concurrency and will utilize multiple
>> connections to the database without requiring a duplicate stack like EOF
>> does. So for concurrency it is a much better ch
On 2012-03-23, at 10:56 AM, John Huss wrote:
> Cayenne supports this kind of concurrency and will utilize multiple
> connections to the database without requiring a duplicate stack like EOF
> does. So for concurrency it is a much better choice than EOF. And it's
> easy to get started if you
Cayenne supports this kind of concurrency and will utilize multiple
connections to the database without requiring a duplicate stack like EOF
does. So for concurrency it is a much better choice than EOF. And it's
easy to get started if you're familiar with EOF already. It can be used
inside a WO
On 2012-03-23, at 10:15 AM, Mike Schrag wrote:
> Definitely can be used to do better routing. Multiple instances still doesn't
> save you from hang ups. You could have two people on one instance, and one
> locks and hangs, and the other backs up. However, combine that with your
> session persi
Definitely can be used to do better routing. Multiple instances still doesn't
save you from hang ups. You could have two people on one instance, and one
locks and hangs, and the other backs up. However, combine that with your
session persistence and you could fail them over to another instance a
On 2012-03-23, at 8:58 AM, Ramsey Gurley wrote:
> My main goal is to better understand EOF conceptually :-) I was playing with
> the ERXOSCPool just for kicks and found a leak. I wondered why an entirely
> new OSC was even needed to make a second connection to the db. Seems like
> overkill. S
My main goal is to better understand EOF conceptually :-) I was playing with
the ERXOSCPool just for kicks and found a leak. I wondered why an entirely new
OSC was even needed to make a second connection to the db. Seems like
overkill. So I fugetuboutit.
Later, I'm rereading through the old do
"
Sent: Friday, March 23, 2012 11:06 AM
Subject: Re: Opening multiple database channels
Yeah, and you're already "inside the lock" at that point.
ms
On Mar 22, 2012, at 11:04 PM, Chuck Hill wrote:
I can only see them being of use in a very, very narrow set of
circumstan
, it works. If I
could remember, this is also mentioned in the WO legacy documentation.
Cheers
Cheong Hee
- Original Message -
From: "Ramsey Gurley"
To: "WebObjects Development"
Sent: Friday, March 23, 2012 10:34 AM
Subject: Opening multiple database channels
Yeah, and you're already "inside the lock" at that point.
ms
On Mar 22, 2012, at 11:04 PM, Chuck Hill wrote:
> I can only see them being of use in a very, very narrow set of circumstances
> - none of which I have ever been in (like fetching inside of awakeFromFetch).
> The only situation in w
I can only see them being of use in a very, very narrow set of circumstances -
none of which I have ever been in (like fetching inside of awakeFromFetch).
The only situation in which I have seen EOF attempt to open a second was in
response to a bug. :-)
Chuck
On 2012-03-22, at 8:02 PM, Mik
yeah, having multiple channels has to be locked by the store, because they are
sharing a common set of snapshots ... you need multiple OSC's if you want
multithreading. the only thing multiple channels is going to give you is
headaches, it seems like.
ms
On Mar 22, 2012, at 10:53 PM, Chuck Hil
OK, so... my first question has to be "what is your goal? What are you trying
to accomplish?" This is NOT going to make EOF multi-threaded.
Chuck
On 2012-03-22, at 7:34 PM, Ramsey Gurley wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'm looking at trying to open multiple database channels in a single instance
> o
Hi all,
I'm looking at trying to open multiple database channels in a single instance
of a WO app. No reason, just wondering if it can be done. I know there's
ERXObjectStoreCoordinator pool, but this conceptually seems like the wrong way
to do it. Maybe I want 4 open connections for one datab
19 matches
Mail list logo
