15 Oct
2003
15 Oct
'03
11:49 a.m.
Dieter Maurer wrote:
Chris Withers wrote at 2003-10-8 21:22 +0100:
Casey Duncan wrote:
I would argue that a better plan would be to only use _v_ vars for completely disposable data only. The application should expect that this values will be gone at any random time, not just at transaction boundaries.
I agree with this. How do we go about find code that uses the assumption that _v_ stuff won't change unless it's at a transaction boundary?
This will invalidate many current uses:
* use for database connections
Not really, I would expect a DA to just re-connect if it got garbage collected...
* use for skin data
This seems to be considered a bug...
* ...
How do we go about finding these? ;-) Chris