> How about this split:
>
> org.apache.turbine.services.db (all DB classes)
> org.apache.turbine.services.db.broker (DBBroker)
> org.apache.turbine.services.db.pool (ConnectionPool, DBFactory,
> DBConnection)
+1
With ConnectionPool and DBBroker as separate services...
> This differs from the previous organization in that DBBroker and DB
> classes have been separated out into different packages than the actual
> database pool, and several methods in ConnectionPool required a lifting
> of access restrictions on methods (protected/private to public). This
> change in access level was necessary to provide DBBroker access to
> needed functionality, and to present a usefull public API to people who
> might only want to use the ConnectionPool without the broker. This is
> bad because it broadens the Turbine connection pool interface, but good
> because it lets people use Turbine on a smaller, simpler scale.
> Tradeoffs...
> --
>
> 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]
>
------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Search: <http://www.mail-archive.com/turbine%40list.working-dogs.com/>
Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
