On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 12:33 PM, Stephen Compall <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Dec 20, 9:07 pm, "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? > > I doubt that with-database is actually sufficient. > > http://groups.google.com/group/weblocks/msg/ebd9125eaf328e77
Hmm, okay. It seems to be sufficient to allow me to begin developing my app, which solves my immediate problem. I do think that it's unfortunate that one can't get a working Weblocks on CLSQL via Quicklisp (alone). It looks like the ways this could be dealt with are: (0) Live with the restrictions/bugs imposed by WITH-DATABASE. (1) Persuade Kevin Rosenberg that this problem needs to be solved in CLSQL, either by merging CLSQL-Fluid or perhaps some other way. (2) Fork CLSQL. I understand that (0) is undesirable, and (2) is not so great either. Has much effort been put towards (1)? Whoever modified the CLiki page (Kevin?) thinks that the primary issue is thread safety -- which was my initial impression as well. It turns out that's just one problem; the other one, as you say, is lazy initialization of join slots. This problem is not Weblocks-specific, correct? -- Scott -- 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.
