Jon Stevens wrote:
>
> on 7/26/2000 1:08 PM, "Daniel L. Rall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I've also been considering making the database connection pool use the
> > global cache functionality internally.
>
> actually, i would -1 that for efficiency reasons. the current scheme works
> fine.
>
> although, it should be turned into a service, but i'm afraid that might
> break a lot of code with package renames.
Is the global cache inefficient? I hate having duplicate code, and I
think that the guts of ConnectionPool could be replaced without
modifying the external interface.
--
Daniel Rall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Search: <http://www.mail-archive.com/turbine%40list.working-dogs.com/>
Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
