Leon Messerschmidt wrote:
>
> > I would like to move the connection pool implementation from the
> > org.apache.turbine.util.db.pool package into a new
> > org.apache.turbine.services.db.pool package. My idea is that we leave a
> > skeleton connection pool in the old org.apache.turbine.util.db.pool
> > package which delegates to the new implementation for backwards
> > compatiblity. All methods in the old package would be deprecated. Your
> > thoughts, noble Turbine developers?
>
> Where would the stuff like DB* be? I assume that you would be moving all
> the classes from org.apache.turbine.util.db.pool to
> org.apache.turbine.services.db.pool including DBBroker and DB*
> implementations.
That was the idea, yes.
> Just a thought: How about having org.apache.turbine.services.db.broker and
> org.apache.turbine.services.db.pool as separate packages? They are in
> effect two different services and you could theoretically use ConnectionPool
> without DBBroker. Maybe with some other O-R tool or something - I don't
> have anything specific in mind :-)
I totally agree with this. Should ConnectionPool then implement the
Service API as well? Also, I haven't yet received any input on my
patch...please speak up! =)
--
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]
