On Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 01:21:32PM -0800, Jon Stevens wrote:
> Therefore, it really does not matter how or where you get the
> connection...just that the Peer object can get a connection. The
> "old-non-j2ee" style that we are currently using in Turbine works perfectly
> fine and even if we do need to plug in a different connection mechanism in
> the future, it simply means changing some auto generated code. Not a big
> deal. I don't see a reason at this point to change it or even switch to
> something else. I really don't see the need to have JNDI or Container
> managed connections.
I'm with you on pretty much all this, the only thing I'd say is why not
go and conform to the JDBC 2.0 APIs - like you say, it doesn't cost us
anything because we just regenerate peer code. And conformance to
standard APIs is a good thing to have in there...
> Prove me wrong.
...which isn't the same thing as proving you wrong :-)
(mind you I don't think _we_ need to go as far as JNDI or Container
managed connections, but just opening the possibility for someone
writing a Turbine app who needs that functionality to do it would be
AGoodThing(tm) IMO.
--
Sean Legassick
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Als Mensch kann mir nichts menschliches Fremd sein
------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Search: <http://www.mail-archive.com/turbine%40list.working-dogs.com/>
Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
