Oliver Zeigermann wrote:

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

2.) Why do you think the approach in org.apache.slide.store.impl.rdbms is better than yours? Why is there an adapter? Also, where do you see a
nicer Java approach?


Well with the adaptor then different DB optimizations maybe more easily
accommodated.
Also I prefer more structure that one big store class. What we have
today grew out of something smaller.


Well, the adapter really is big as well...

But, I do not mind too much, as in my opinion it is simply a matter of taste. As I said, I want to have something everyone can live with. So, let's have a vote upon this. Whatever you people decide, I will do...

I finally understood the use of this adapter. It is to have a J2EE implementation (org.apache.slide.store.impl.rdbms.J2EEStore) where the datasource is retrieved over JNDI and a pure JDBC (org.apache.slide.store.impl.rdbms.JDBCStore) implementation where you create connections over DriverManager.getConnection.


So I eventually changed my mind and vote for the adapter thing to allow using this store from a non-J2EE-environment. Maybe we should think about a third store using this adapter that also explicitely makes use of connection pooling, e.g. using DBCP.

So far it is 3 for adapter (including Colin and me) 0 for none-adapter.

Oliver



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Reply via email to