Re: [phpGroupWare-developers] is the db class reentrant ? (following an old post of sigurd in 2005)

[Dave Hall]

On Wed, 2008-04-09 at 10:20 -0500, Chris Weiss wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 10:10 AM, Benoit Hamet <address@hidden> wrote:
> >  solve the problem, which let me think about a reentrant problem (so a
> >  new query is done using the same db object, and so next_record() is
> >  totaly wrong next time ...).
> >
> >  I Guess we already discuss this [Yeah : search for "Is there some
> >  problem using adodb?" in 2005 archives] ... but do we have an "elegant"
> >  solution for this kind of problem ?
> >  clone the db object in the sonotes ? (beurk)
> >  perhaps better, let accounts having it's own cloned db object (little
> >  better, since like that it won't hurt when using ldap as backend).
> >  avoid this kind of code ? :)
> >
> 
> I'd go for the latter.  if we could always lookup the name int eh db
> i'd go with adding a JOIN to the first query, but if that won't work
> with ldap, then having the accounts class self contained is the better
> option.
> 
> however, with adodb we can make it reentrant, just that the old db
> class that wraps it wasn't designed that way.


I think it is best to make the db object a singleton and use PDO, but I
don't think that will happen in this release.  I think we are stuck with
the same circa 1999 design from PHPLib for this release.

Cloning the db object is not sustainable.  I have seen cases where we
have had more than 10 db objects created for rendering 1 simple list of
records.  This chews up a lot of resources and memory on the server.

Cheers

Dave