on 6/15/01 8:32 PM, "Serge Knystautas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> While I think Turbine would be great for
> letting James automatically create the appropriate table structure, I think
> it is overkill for what James needs. I think pure JDBC with a simple
> connection pooling code is what we need.
Questions:
#1. How are you going to handle the fact that every database out there has a
different set of needs for getting ID's for inserts?
#2. How are you going to handle the fact that every database out there has a
different idea of how SQL should be written?
If any of the answers to the questions above require you to "invent" or
"write" more code to deal with this (and I know they do), then I would say
that Turbine's Peer system is far from being "overkill".
> 3. We need a lot of control over how data is returned for performance
> reasons. Two big limitations we are experiencing with Town (that I believe
> we would have with Turbine and other abstraction layers) is the inability to
> return parts of a ResultSet and to get streamed access to binary data. I
> believe both of these are critical to increasing scalability and
> performance.
Then in that case you can just write straight JDBC calls. I'm not saying to
use Turbine where it doesn't make sense to.
Thanks,
-jon
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
