I'm not familiar with the details of your DB connection pool, but I just thought I'd
offer this consideration: In our custom framework, we decided that our db connections
should NOT extend
java.sql.connection, because we didn't want anyone to close a connection. We decided
that the connection pool should be the only thing responsible for closing connections.
Individual applications
should simply request connections from the pool, and return them to the pool. If
someone wants to go off on their own and do their own special thing, JDBC is always
available, but we wanted to
keep our pool clean. ;)
Food for thought.
Bob
Marcelo Vanzin wrote:
>
>
> Subject: Re: Connection pool (and more)
> From: "Marcelo Vanzin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 14:10:26 -0200
>
> Jon Stevens wrote:
>
> >> But I got interested in the last one: modifying the connection pool
> >> system to have multiple database failover. Is anyone working on that? Or
> >> has it already been done?
> > +1 Go for it.
>
> I'll begin to take a look at it this week then.
>
> In the meantime, is there a reason why DBConnection does not implement
> java.sql.Connection? It could be useful in some situations.
>
>
> --
> []'s
> Marcelo Vanzin
> Touch Tecnologia
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "We're an underground revolution working overtime"
------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Search: <http://www.mail-archive.com/turbine%40list.working-dogs.com/>
Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
