--- Danny Angus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Juozas, > > > I think I will leave commons and I will spend more my time on SF > > with forked > > code, if this kind of vote can win at apache. > > My input is not a very big, but I will lose any energy to work for > crap . > > I think it is sad that you would rather leave than suggest any > alternative. > > It highlights my point though, why should we expect those in favour of > its > retention to remain involved if we drop this when you won't remain > involved > if it is not dropped? > > Surely we should at least _try_ to accomodate both points of view? Or > are > also against even helping to find a compromise that would satify your > requirements? > > I can see no technical reason why this should not be done, perhaps you > can? > If so why don't you help us by explaining why a compromise can never be > acceptable to you.
IMO, a design that allows users to plugin behaviors, be they connection retrieval or otherwise, is the best solution. Then the question becomes whether to include a connection retrieval behavior in the DBCP release. I think that's far outside the scope of DBCP and encourages users to rely on Jakarta code to fix their apps. That is a poor precedent to set. David > > d. > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
