RE: [PEAR-DEV] do pear packages create their own seperate DB connections?

> From: Wolfram Kriesing [mailto:wolfram@visionp.de] > Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2003 5:33 PM > Lukas Smith wrote: > >>From: Wolfram Kriesing [mailto:wolfram@visionp.de] > >>Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2003 5:12 PM > > > > > >>now i dont have to instanciate the DB myself, since i dont really need > >>it. Only the packages i use need the DB-connection. I actually use > >>only 3 packages that need a DB-connection (iirc) Auth, Tree, > >>DB_QueryTool. To those packages i simply pass the DB_DSN and they > >>(should) handle themselves if/when they need a DB-connection. > > > > > > Hmm well to me there are two things that might create overhead here: > > > > 1) object creation > > 2) connection establishing > > > > 2) does not exist in MDB as the connection is created on demand with the > > first query. So if you simply always create an MDB object which you then > > pass to any package you use, the only overhead you have in the case you > > don't need a Db connection is the MDB object creation. > > > > I don't really understand how standard PEAR packages should be able to > > figure out if you have an instance of a certain package from global > > space without a total mess? I am probably misunderstanding what you are > > proposing here. > > yeah i think 1) could be overhead > either > i) you accept it (or there is a solution to prevent it) > or > ii) may be [M]DB could/should have a mode which returns always the > same instance for one DSN, which of course could cause problems when > you depend on [M]DB internal states I am no expert in the pattern buzz word bingo game .. but it would very well be possible to write a "singleton" pattern in MDB that would require no modification in the other packages. MDB already maintains an array of all existing MDB instances. This array could be traversed before creating a new instance. Regards, Lukas