On Friday, October 3, 2003 at 16:33:58 (+0200) Christian Essl writes:
>...
>Than I would give out the DOA directly as a service. Than as you also said
>(for your second question) I would implement a ConnectionPool service
>interface and a (or more) implementation(s) (one which just holds one
>connection - for your testing). Than I would change the DAO-implementation
>to take a ConnectionPool service as parameter and get the connection from
>there.
>
>interface ConnectionPool {
> public Connection getConnection();
> public void returnConnection(Connection connection);
>}
Hmm, I'm starting to like this.
><module...>
>
><service-point id="DAO"
>...
></service>
>
><service-point id="ConnectionPool"
>...
></service>
Ok, I think I'm getting the point...
>Now you saved the factory and you have access to the single connection in
>your test-code. In running code you can still change to a real connection
>pool. With this suggestion you still have to change both the DAO service-
>definition and the ConnectionPool definition if you want to change the DAO
>implementation. However this can be cleaned up, see the Overriding-Services
>tutorial at the hivemind page.
>
>Finally: I think (like you) you should if you are going to use a 'real'
>connection-pool take the connection out of the commands. I would give the
>commands the connection as a parameter each time they are called. The
>caller would get it from the ConnectionPool call the command with it and
>return it straight to the pool.
This is something I've been considering, and I think I'm convinced that
this is a better way to do things.
Thanks for the feedback.
Bill
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
