on 2/24/01 8:19 PM, "Sean Legassick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No disagreement that non-pooled connections is bad design.
>
> That's not my point though, the point is that the app developer writing
> the DB access code shouldn't even have to /think/ about the issue. They
> just want to get a DB connection and let it go.
How is that ANY different than what is going on with Turbine's pool right
now?
In fact, since we promote using Peers, you don't even have to worry about
connections other than configuring them in the TR.props file!
:-)
> Yes, I'm not sure using the existing method named "close" was a great
> choice. I can only guess this was decided because all the existing code
> out there would have "finally { connection.close() }" at the end of the
> DB access already. But like you say they could have overloaded close
> _and_ deprecated it in favour of a better named method...
Yup.
> Okay, I'll update the docs that mention the pool to mention the JDBC2
> way of doing it. Having said that its not strictly necessary because the
> old ways will still work...
It is necessary to explain to people why we have two ways to do the same
thing.
-jon
--
If you come from a Perl or PHP background, JSP is a way to take
your pain to new levels. --Anonymous
<http://jakarta.apache.org/velocity/> && <http://java.apache.org/turbine/>
------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Search: <http://www.mail-archive.com/turbine%40list.working-dogs.com/>
Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
