On Wed, 4 Feb 2004, Paul Thomas wrote:
>
> On 04/02/2004 06:04 Oliver Jowett wrote:
> > [snip]
> > DriverManager.getConnection() has a variant that takes a Properties
> > object, so I'd expect apps to support reading properties from a
> > configuration file to pass to the driver. Maybe it'd be preferable to
> > encourage apps to take this route rather than having a huge URL string.
> > I'm not sure we need to support passing a properties file location in
> > the URL (3) if we do this.
>
> For web application developers who use connection pooling (e.g., me)
> passing parameters in the URL would be the preferred option. ATM, I can't
> see how putting the name of a properties file in the URL would really help
> as deciding on a valid physical location for the file can be problematic
> and is highly container-specific. For my purposes, JNDI would be
> preferable to a properties file if it is decided to add facilities beyond
> URL paramters.
As java.sql.Driver's only connection method is connect(String url,
Properties info) we are always eventually dealing with both a url and a
properties object. Internally pg takes the URL and parses it into various
fields and sticks that all in the given properties object and then uses
the properties object exclusively. This means that any parameter can be
passed in either the properties object or the URL. So the debate between
the url and the properties object is not an important one. I know you are
specifically addresses Barry's proposed additional files, but I just
wanted to make clear that url parameters and the properties data is the
same thing.
Kris Jurka
