2005/9/13, Nico Klasens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > [ X] -1 (NO) I too feel that everywhere MMBase, besides in one DataSource implementation, JDBC should not explicitel be used. So I think agree on half of the proposed removals or so.
But I won't like the complete disappearance of MultiPool and JDBC because - It is simply configurable by a database URL. More simple than that is hardly possible, which gives several advantages - We can ship a working mmbase with an hsql url. - You can easily try out another app-server you are not familiar with. - Running stand-alone remains an option, also for junit tests - It is possible to get the database name, because that is in the connection url... This is currently not used, but I would like it as a fall back for hsql, because its connection.getCatalog() simply always returns null (few days back I asked quest about this on hsql's dev-list, but no response yet :-() I think it is a bit important to know the actual database name, e.g. for blob dirs. Is there a way to do this using only DataSource? Is 'getCalalog()' the right way, and is this a bug of hsql? Furthermore is the MultiPool code of course a distaster but I think that perhaps now it is reasonably good and at least longly tested, and it remains to be seen if implementations offered by app-servers are as good. But of course I'm all +1 for cleaning up al other mess. I'll change to +0 with the amendements of Pierre, and to +1 if jdbc.xml with its basic classes (JDBC, MultiPool and one or two others) simply remain forever, though of course cleaned, or - of course - if one can convince me that my points are invalid or irrelevant. Michiel -- mihxil' http://mihxil.komputilo.org/ nl_NL eo_XX en_US _______________________________________________ Developers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.mmbase.org/mailman/listinfo/developers
