Kris Jurka wrote:
> Having received another report[1] of the lack of robustness of our pooling
> implementation I think we should scrap our datasource and pooling
> implementation. [...]
> Would anyone like to make a case for keeping our implementation around?
I use our plain DataSource and ConnectionPoolDataSource implementations.
Please keep them; the CPDS, especially, has scope to do driver-specific
work (consider RESET CONNECTION on proxy connection close()) that can't
be done at a higher level easily.
Dropping the "pooling" DataSource implementation is fine, dbcp fills
that role well by the sounds of it and there's no real reason it has to
be implemented by the driver.
-O
