Pierre van Rooden wrote: > Michiel Meeuwissen wrote: > > >So, it'll be simple to supply that one too. Will give a compile-time > >depency, which I'm ok with. > > > >Perhaps we can start with that, and it if works fine I'm ok with > >dropping JDBC/Multipool completely. Though I still think we could > >probably also leave it as an alternative. > > > > > I'm not eager for another dependency. If we provide it, I think we > should really drop our own pool code completely. > If we don't drop our own code, we should not add another jar dependency. > It is ridiculous to have exactly the same thing twice, just differently > implemented.
I do not think it is ridiculous. We e.g. also have several implementations of 'List' in java (ArrayList, LinkedList), which are functionally equivalent, but one is better in certain situations and the other in other situations. As long as we are not certain that the apache one is better in all situations, we can just leave both implementations and offer the choice. As soon as it is clear that one alternative has only advantages and the runtime dependency is no issue, we can drop the other one. Michiel -- Michiel Meeuwissen mihxil' Peperbus 111 MediaPark H'sum [] () +31 (0)35 6772979 nl_NL eo_XX en_US _______________________________________________ Developers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.mmbase.org/mailman/listinfo/developers
