My opinion (and what we do here) is mailets should make their own arrangements. It's easier for both James and my code because: 1) James doesn't have to second guess what I might want from a DB connection 2) If I want to handle the connection (if it dies etc) I can do so 3) I may want to control how the pooling works etc.
If you do your first option then using isDatabaseConnectionProvider() seems OK -- Jason > -----Original Message----- > From: Danny Angus [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: 06 January 2003 16:58 > To: James Developers List > Subject: RE: Avalon dependance in mailets > > > Hi again, > > The next thing I'm stuck on is database connections. > Now currently there are a squad of mailets using avalon to > get database connections, however we want to remove avalon > dependancies from mailets, so... > > do we either make db connections available through the > MailetAPI or do we force mailets to make other arrangements. > > Assuming the first one, which I am, I don't think that we > should force implementations to make db access available, it > may not be appropriate for every case, therefore I'm going to > assume that this is an optional feature of the API and add to > mailet context the following: > > boolean isDatabaseConnectionProvider() > and java.sql.Connection getDatabaseConnection(String datasourceName) > > so that mailets which require database connections can fail > gracefully in containers which don't support database access. > > Any thoughts? > > > d. > > > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > <mailto:james-dev-> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> > For > additional commands, > e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
