Having a runnable test case that didn't require spending hours trying to get stuff installed helped clarify the described problem.

The basic problem is that the DBIx::Simple object [returned from dbs()] gets destroyed after the DBIx::Simple::Statement object is created [and returned by query()] but before it can be used.

It wasn't, as I initially misunderstood, that the DBIx::Simple::Statement object is actually being DESTROYed before it can be used.

DBIx::Simple goes to some significant lengths to make all DBIx::Simple::Statement objects suddenly become unusable as soon as their parent DBIx::Simple object is destroyed.

I don't pretend to know why this strange lifecycle interplay is implemented or even whether or not it is a good idea.

But thwarting that part of the module design by inducing circular references such that things just never get destroyed is not what I would call a "bug fix", nor "wise".

Here is an abbreviated summary of the differences between runs of your test cases with one I added with and without the "fix" of not quoting $self (matching lines are prefixed with "=" to aid comparison):

Which shows that the 'fix' does indeed prevent a bunch of stuff from being cleaned up until Perl's "global destruction".

Here is my modified test code. The modifications I made to DBIx::Simple are left as a trivial exercise for the reader:

The test case I added makes it clearer how the lifecycle interplay designed into the module is violated:

        warn "Starting CASE 4";
        {    # CASE 4 - also fails
            my $s   = constructor;
            my $r;
            {
                my $dbs = $s->dbs;
                $r   = $dbs->query($Q);
                warn sprintf 'Result of DBIx::Simple-from-Local query:
+ %s',
                  Dumper($r);
            }
            my $h = $r->hashes;
            warn sprintf 'Hashes? %s', Dumper($h);
            ok( $r->{st}->isa($desired_class), $desired_desc );

        }
[download]

DBIx::Simple goes to some significant lengths to make all DBIx::Simple::Statement objects suddenly become unusable as soon as their parent DBIx::Simple object is destroyed.

I don't pretend to know why this strange lifecycle interplay is implemented or even whether or not it is a good idea.

DBIx::Simple objects represent database connections, and when your connection to the database is gone, the corresponding statement handles will no longer function correctly. Because destruction/disconnection related bugs can be hard to find, DBIx::Simple actively shuts down the remaining active statements, and replaces them with objects that when used throw an error message that actually contains information about where the object was destroyed.

It is possible to build a DBIx::Simple object from an existing DBI connection, in which case destruction of the DBIx::Simple object does not cause disconnection. Whether statements should be kept around is debatable but I chose to keep it simple, and let DBIx::Simple clean its own mess regardless of how the database connection was originally made.

The option to pass an existing $dbh was added later and it appears that a part of the documentation was not updated accordingly:

Destroys (finishes) active statements and disconnects. Whenever the database object is destroyed, this happens automatically if DBIx::Simple handled the connection (i.e. you didn't use an existing DBI handle). After disconnecting, you can no longer use the database object or any of its result objects.

Destruction used to unconditionally also disconnect the $dbh; this was changed later, but that made that last sentence incomplete. It should instead read "After disconnecting or destroying the DBIx::Simple object, ..."

Although the documentation should be improved, DBIx::Simple is doing exactly what it was designed to do. Indeed, simply removing the quotes and making a real reference does not fix a bug, and it is certainly not a wise thing to do: it introduces new bugs, because users of DBIx::Simple depend on their objects being destroyed and their database connections disconnected when their $db goes out of scope.

The trick for wrappers like metaperl's Local::DBIx::Simple could be to somehow keep a reference around and do some of their own lifecycle management.

Thanks for the explanation. That is about what I expected, actually even better.

The trick for wrappers like metaperl's Local::DBIx::Simple could be to somehow keep a reference around and do some of their own lifecycle management.

Exactly.

- tye        

Because destruction/disconnection related bugs can be hard to find

What is your opinion of DBIx::Connector? Do you think you should delegate the complexity of keeping database connections alive to it?

Also, please note well that destruction bugs and disconnection bugs are two separate classes of problem. I dont know which the use of double quotes about $db was supposed to address. But I do know that common sense about reference counting between a DBIx::Simple database handle and DBIx::Simple::Statement which has-a database handle should not require any particular weakening like you are doing. Just think for a second:

1. we create a database connection, D
2. we create a statement instance, S, which refers to D. This makes the reference count for D== 2
3. we create a another statement instance, S2, which also refers to D. This makes the reference count for D== 3
4. S2 goes out of scope. Reference count for D drops to 2
5. S goes out of scope. Reference count for D drops to 1
6. D goes out of scope, reference count for D drops to 0 and D is extinguished
I simply dont understand why we need to prevent the reference count from naturally increasing and decreasing as the DBIx::Simple instance becomes a compononent of DBIx::Simple::Statement instances.

The trick for wrappers like metaperl's Local::DBIx::Simple could be to somehow keep a reference around and do some of their own lifecycle management.

Without any concrete suggestions for modification, I dont know what to say or try. But I would say this. Local::DBIx::Simple is a very simple, clearly written wrapper and it isnt working.

Excellent work, tye. I've cc'ed you on the RT Ticket I just filed.

Personally DBIx::Custom looks to give me all that DBIx::Simple has supplied me for all these years in a new more modern package with the benefit of hindsight.

Instead of forking Simple, I think I will just move over to Custom.





The mantra of every experienced web application developer is the same: thou shalt separate business logic from display. Ironically, almost all template engines allow violation of this separation principle, which is the very impetus for HTML template engine development.

-- Terence Parr, "Enforcing Strict Model View Separation in Template Engines"