[email protected] wrote:
> Hi Scott,
>
> Thanks for the pointer. I managed to get it to work, more or less,
> using the new way:
> --
> <leaf:ConnectionPoolDataSource>
> ...
> </leaf:ConnectionPoolDataSource>
> --
> and the old "bean" way:
> --
> <bean name="MyPool">
> <type>org.leaf.ConnectionPoolDataSource</type>
> <jndi-name>java:comp/env/jdbc/MyPool</jndi-name>
> <init>
> ...
> </init>
> </bean>
> --
>
> However, I find it more flexible to use the old bean way as it allows
> me to publish it to JNDI, so the old JNDI-based applications don't
> have to rewritten, and it allows me more easily to instantiate
> different resources and assign them different names (If I understoon
> correctly, I have to create a new @Qualified annotation for each name
> with the new Resin 4.0's way).
>
Well, I've just added a resin:Jndi="java:comp/env/jdbc/MyPool" to
achieve the same thing as the old one.
With the new Qualifiers, it's recommended to have a Qualifier for each
kind of resource. You can use the annotation's attributes to distinguish
between similar qualifiers. So you could have @Login(xa=false) vs
@Login(xa=true) to distinguish a transactional DataSource from a
non-transactional one.
Also, you can use the built-in @Named("MyPool") as a general Qualifier.
It's recommended to use custom ones to improve the code's documentation,
but the @Named works perfectly well.
Unless you have a specific need for JNDI or have legacy code or are
transitioning, I see less need in the future for JNDI. It's more
cumbersome, and provides less code self-documentation than CDI injection.
-- Scott
> Am I missing something? I like much better the old way :).
> D.
>
>
> S'està citant Scott Ferguson <[email protected]>:
>
>
>> Daniel López wrote:
>>
>>> Hi there,
>>>
>>> For some reason, I would like to be able inside Resin a datasource
>>> implementation other than Resin's, C3P0 for example, and I have been
>>> unable to find in the documentation how would one configure it. The
>>> examples that I found use the <database> tag, which does not seem to
>>> have an attribute to specify an implementation class for the DataSource.
>>>
>>> Is it possible at all?
>>>
>>>
>> You'd treat it as a generic bean. In Resin 4.0.x, it would be the
>>
>> <c3p0:DataSourceImpl xmlns:c3p0="...">
>> ...
>> </c3p0:DataSourceImpl>
>>
>> The <database> tag wouldn't make sense, because it's integrated with
>> Resin's JCA/pooling code, which is what you're trying to replace.
>>
>> -- Scott
>>
>>> D.
>>>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> resin-interest mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://maillist.caucho.com/mailman/listinfo/resin-interest
>
>
_______________________________________________
resin-interest mailing list
[email protected]
http://maillist.caucho.com/mailman/listinfo/resin-interest
