Juozas, > I do not think it is good idea to maintain any kind of public API for > "abandoned connections", It is garbage, > If application or server is not broken, it doe's not need workarounds.
It is easy for you to say this, but the fact remains that a number of people are quite vocal in their support for it, it is wrong for us to ignore the needs of _all_ users, particularly if we are talking about removing functionality which already exists and is in use. Therefore there we have four options: 1/ We vote and the winning proposal is implemented leaving everyone else dissatisfied 2/ We retain the status quo 3/ Someone makes a change without the general consent of the group 4/ We reach a compromise. 1 is the Apache way. 2 is ignoring the issue. 3 is unacceptable and would cause trouble. 4 is surely the most reasonable course of action to take. Now I know you favour dropping support, others don't. What would you say if we retained it? What would they say if we dropped it? Alternatively Serge's proposal is a proposal for compromise, I was attempting to provide some support for the proposal by detailing one possible way in which a compromise can be accomodated, allowing both sets of users to have DBCP behave in the way they favour without breaking it for the others. If you believe my suggestions are garbage I suggest you help the process by suggesting an alternative compromise as it looks likely that only a compromise will be generally acceptable. d. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
