On Sat, Feb 24, 2001 at 01:15:59PM -0800, Jon Stevens wrote:
> You still have to put it into a finally in order to close() it. There is
> nothing gained by doing that and it is also confusing IMHO to do that
> because it overloads the meaning of close(). That is bad engineering design
> IMHO.
Yeah, I do see your point - you look at a call to close() and you don't
know whether it will close or release the connection.
However, I actually disagree that this is bad engineering. At the level
that you are writing DB access code it shouldn't be important where the
DB connections come from and go, all you need to write semantically is
"i want a db connection" and "now I've finished with this connection". I
like the gain that you take the same code and it will work with either a
pooled or non-pooled connection provider.
But then that's just MHO :-)
Either way if I commit Costas's changes (after testing) our user's get
to make their own choice ...
--
Sean Legassick
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ek is 'n man: niks menslik is vreemd vir my nie
------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Search: <http://www.mail-archive.com/turbine%40list.working-dogs.com/>
Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
