[SNIPPED]
> I'm against throwing stuff happily into .services. package hierarchy.
> I believe that .services.whatever package should contain
> - a 'whatever' service interface
> - a wrapper class for the 'whatever' service
> - at least one implementation of 'whatever' service.
> I think it's possible to put mulitple services related to 'whatever'
> in the same package.
> for example:
> org.apache.turbine.services.db.DBBrokerService (managing DB adapters)
> org.apache.turbine.services.db.ConnectionPoolService
> (managing pooled connections)
> with wrapper classes
> org.apache.turbine.services.db.DBBroker
> org.apache.turbine.services.db.ConnectionPool
> and implementations
> org.apache.turbine.services.db.TurbineDBBrokerService
> org.apache.turbine.services.db.TurbineConnectionPoolService
> All the classes that these services use for performing their duty,
> should live in .util. hierarchy, for example:
> org.apache.turbine.util.db.pool.DBConnection
> org.apache.turbine.util.db.adapter.DB
> org.apache.turbine.util.db.adapter.DBFactory
> org.apache.turbine.util.db.adapter.DBOracle
> org.apache.turbine.util.db.adapter.DBSybase
+1
But, can't we keep the DBBroker/ConnectionPool implementation(s) in
org.apache.turbine.util.db.pool for
compatibility, maybe with a deprecated tag?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
This message has been scanned for viruses with Trend Micro's Interscan VirusWall.
------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Search: <http://www.mail-archive.com/turbine%40list.working-dogs.com/>
Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
