Tony, How long is "a long time now"? I have quite a bit of history with the product and if BF enabled it for UO.NET, it would only be from v3 (and I haven't time to confirm if it is v3), which is a fairly new version. Having said that, mv.NET doesn't dictate whether connection pooling has been properly licensed (which in enables it as well) on the U2 server. Also, I provided a link in my previous post to an IBM white paper that should demonstrate coding with CP in mind.
Regards, LeRoy -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tony Gravagno Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 5:46 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [U2] RE: mv.NET and UO Just to clarify - mv.NET can use standard UO but has also been enabled to use UO.NET for a long time now, and standard UO might not even be supported in a near-future release. It's preferable to use managed components all the way through, so UO.NET is the preferred pipe. T LeRoy Dreyfuss wrote: > mv.NET from BlueFinity would be using standard UniObjects and as > such, could not take advantage of connection pooling from U2 (CP). ------- u2-users mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ ------- u2-users mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
