> > They used to sit in the same CVS tree.
> >
>
> And they used to share code, too (in the utilities packages) ... until Catalina
> started getting bit every time a refactoring was done on the utilities code.
And I'm hoping that after the Library is aproved we can start
sharing code again - and the rules about having all the projects that
use a piece of code involved and able to -1 any change are intended
to solve exactly this problem.
> > Until this happens - all DBCPs are equal.
> >
>
> Isn't that true afterwards as well? If we adopt that part of the PERL
> philosophy ("there's more than one way to do it"), you could still reasonably
> have 2+ (although "+" is unlikely in reality) product-quality, supported,
> shareable, reusable, DBCP implementations that have different feature sets.
+1.
And again, I think that would benefit anyone - by reducing conflicts
( if there is only one way to do it, how do you decide which one has
the "right" one ?), plus it'll allow more choices ( JDK1.1 or
speed or size or features - there are many tradeoffs that need to
be made in any component, and mulitple implementations will
probably make different choices ).
Costin
