> I setup the destroy() chain that suggested here, then noticed that
> neither DBBroker nor ConnectionPool implement the Service interface.
> Two questions: first, should I make DBBroker implement the Service API
> to take advantage of destroy() and cleanup its connections on shutdown?
> --
Hmmm...this is tough. A lot of code depends on the DB stuff which is a PITA
cause it makes it harder to efficiently put it under the Services system
without screwing things up for lots of people. So, we have a choice to make
#1. Screw things up for people and fix Turbine to do the right thing. Note
that the DB stuff was done LONG before the Services stuff was, so that is why
things are screwed up in the first place. Given that we haven't released
anything as final yet, I'm leaning towards this as long as it can be
accomplished quickly.
#2. Do it inefficiently and not very cleanly. In other words, write a services
wrapper around the DB stuff and then execute that wrapper in order to not only
provide a services arch around the DB stuff, but also to provide the destroy()
functionality without breaking anyone's code.
I will leave it up to the list to make the final decison though.
> Second, regardless of the answer to the first question, shall I commit
> the destroy() chaining (Turbine servlet's destroy() method iterates its
> Services, calling destroy on each)?
+1 from me, but you need two more.
-jon
--
Scarab -
Java Servlet Based - Open Source
Bug/Issue Tracking System
<http://scarab.tigris.org/>
------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Search: <http://www.mail-archive.com/turbine%40list.working-dogs.com/>
Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
