Gregory, I assume you meant 'JDO instances retrieved via JNDI' and not 'JDBC' ? If this is the case, the answer is no. All we are planning to do is a new and improved way of loading the Castor configuration and obtaining an instance of JDO.
As it stand now, there will be two phases a) load the Castor configuration with one the many public static JDO.loadConfiguration() methods b) obtain an instance of JDO through public static JDO getInstance (String) In addition, you'll be able to specify more than one <database> element in the JDO config file, and obtain separate JDO instances for each. I hope this addresses your question, and for more details, please follow the bug report at http://bugzilla.exolab.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1594 as it will provide you with quite some insight to this issue. Werner On Tue, 4 May 2004 14:02:23 +0100, Gregory Block wrote: > >On 22 Apr 2004, at 11:05, Werner Guttmann wrote: >> As this is quite a radical departure from current standards, I'd >> appreciate any comments. With this in mind, I'd rather have two 'JDO' >> objects, with the old >> one marked deprecated. > >Will this affect those of us using JDO instances retrieved via JDBC? > > > >----------------------------------------------------------- >If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing, send mail to >[EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of: > unsubscribe castor-dev > ----------------------------------------------------------- If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of: unsubscribe castor-dev
