Forgive me for being ignorant but where are the Map related classes ending
up? My guess is that you are leaving them associated with DBBroker. Is
this true?
DBBroker was born as part of the connection pooling. The association with
the mapping classes was made later and I was thinking the association should
be broken and DBBroker assigned to connection pooling duties only, again.
Please clue me in.
John McNally
----- Original Message -----
From: Daniel L. Rall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Turbine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2000 1:00 AM
Subject: connection pool repackage
> 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)
>
> 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]
