On Wed, 5 Sep 2007, Dave Cramer wrote:
>
> On 5-Sep-07, at 1:27 PM, Kris Jurka wrote:
>
>> But that benchmark was run with a different caching implementation than the
>> wrapper version, so I'm not sure how that's relevant. When Sun chose to
>> use unpublished and unreviewed code for the benchmark they got themselves
>> in a little bind and I'm not sure it's our job to bail them out by
>> publishing and advertising code that we're not confident in. Heikki,
>> Oliver, and myself did not believe the code used by Sun in the benchmark
>> was correct in the general case so it was rejected for inclusion in the
>> core driver.
>
> So as I understand it the objection to the caching implementation is that
> statement caching belongs in the app server ?
No, the objection above is that the code you originally submitted was not
good enough to be included in the driver regardless of whether it should
be in the driver or app server. If we aren't using the code that you
originally submitted then the argument that we need to publish something
for benchmark compliance is silly because the requirement is you publish
the code/driver used, not a somewhat similar implementation.
> If this is the case then I would argue that having caching in the appserver
> is a great idea for everyone using an appserver it does not help the rest of
> the world that doesn't use an app server.
This is the consensus I'd like to see built before we spend a lot of time
on something. Heikki doesn't believe we should do this at all as it is
covered by DBCP and app server pools. You clearly believe we need this
and I'm sort of on the fence (I recall that's where Oliver is as well, but
I don't claim to speak for him).
> Is there a technical argument here ?
>
No, this is just a recap of the previous events from my perspective.
Kris Jurka
