> -----Original Message-----
> From: Daniel L. Rall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2000 12:26 PM
> To: Turbine
> Subject: Re: connection pool repackage
>
>
> Rafal Krzewski wrote:
> >
> > "Brekke, Jeff" wrote:
> >
> > > But, can't we keep the DBBroker/ConnectionPool
> implementation(s) in
> > > org.apache.turbine.util.db.pool for
> > > compatibility, maybe with a deprecated tag?
> >
> > Sure, +1 on that. Many people are using the pool in standalone
> > programs, we don't want to break their code right away. Deprecated
> > tag would also be good, to motivate them to update.
>
> Yeah, that was the idea. Should I subclass the util.db.pool classes
> from the new services.db directory and stub every method as deprecated
> with delegation to super(...), or should I leave the existing
> implementation and mark everything as deprecated?
The user only really interacts with DBBroker and DBConnection directly,
these
would be the only two to re-implement with the services stuff. I've used
the
@deprecated tag in the javadoc for the class and it seems to work.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
