Hey Scott, good to see you around here!
On Dec 21, 3:07 am, "Scott L. Burson" <[email protected]> wrote: > Presumably that will get fixed, > but I'm also wondering (partly prompted by the comments > onhttp://www.cliki.net/clsql-fluid) whether CLSQL-Fluid is really the > right thing. Wouldn't something like this work just as well? If not, > why not? > > (defmethod accept-connections :around ((acceptor weblocks-acceptor)) > (clsql:with-database (clsql:*default-database* *connection- > spec* :pool t) > (call-next-method))) We've discussed this in the context of the upcoming Postmodern store and think it's the right thing to do (provided we abstract it properly so it works with multiple stores). But we need to test and think a bit more about it. It'd be great if you could try this approach in parallel for CLSQL. Leslie -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "weblocks" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/weblocks?hl=en.
