| From: | Oliver Jowett <oliver(at)opencloud(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dave Cramer <pg(at)fastcrypt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org, Kris Jurka <books(at)ejurka(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Caching driver on pgFoundry? |
| Date: | 2007-09-08 21:38:59 |
| Message-ID: | 46E31673.4070504@opencloud.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-jdbc |
Dave Cramer wrote:
>
> On 7-Sep-07, at 9:13 AM, Oliver Jowett wrote:
>>
>> What is the implementation advantage of making statement pooling part
>> of the main driver? There are maintenance issues which count *against*
>> it being part of the driver so you need to provide a good reason to
>> include it.
>>
> Well, it has to be maintained regardless of where it is. So how does
> that make any difference ?
Err if it is part of the main driver it needs to be maintained as part
of the main driver and will follow the main driver's release cycle.
Others have commented on the same thing. It also increases the
complexity of the main driver, making it harder for a particular person
to maintain the whole thing.
I'm going to ask again: What is the implementation advantage of making
statement pooling part of the main driver?
-O
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Oliver Jowett | 2007-09-08 21:44:49 | Re: Caching driver on pgFoundry? |
| Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2007-09-07 17:04:43 | Re: Caching driver on pgFoundry? |