I don't have a strong feeling either way. Less modules would be simplier and probably a bit faster, so unless there are compelling reasons to have them seperate I would say move the pool stuff into connector (assuming that only connector is every expected to depend on this stuff).
--jason On Thu, 15 Nov 2001, David Jencks wrote: > My current opinion is > > --jbosspool may be very good for some things, but has way too much > speculative functionality for a comprehensible jca ConnectionManager. It > is also too complicated to find bugs in (and there are serious bugs) > --Both jbosspool and the ConnectionManagers are under X license. Aaron > doesn't seem interested in changing the license on the files he wrote. > > My goal is to write a simpler, better working pool implementation with > exactly what is needed for ConnectionManagers, and replace all the X code. > At least one person has expressed interest in the jbosspool stuff for other > purposes, so I'm really not sure what to do with it. > > david jencks > > On 2001.11.15 18:26:50 -0500 Jason Dillon wrote: > > > Out of curiousity, where does connector (jbosscx) fit into your > > packaging > > > scheme? For 3.0 you might consider putting the contents of pool and > > > connector into one package (if they aren't already) as pool is now > > small > > > and only used by jbosscx. > > > > Why not move the pool stuff into jboss/connector (jbosscx) and drop pool? > > > > --jason > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Jboss-development mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development > _______________________________________________ Jboss-development mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
