On 2-Aug-07, at 3:50 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Dave Cramer wrote:
>> I posted the proof of concept back in June of last year, and again in
>> March.
>>
>> I searched the archives but was unable to find where you voiced this
>> opinion ?
>
> It was as a reply to your post last year:
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-jdbc/2006-06/msg00049.php
>
> Maybe I should've voiced my opinion more strongly back then..
Yes, that would have been helpful. So can we now turn our attention
to the
technical merits of the patch ?
>
>> Either way, the patch is written in such a way to be very non-
>> invasive
>> to the driver, and the code
>> will only ever be executed (except for a single if statement) if the
>> user enables the feature.
>>
>> Can you be more specific about why you want this as a separate
>> module ?
>
> I'd just like to keep the core JDBC driver slim as a matter of
> principle. Given that most application servers already have their own
> connection pooling and prepared statement caching implementation, and
> the fact that there's other stand-alone implementations out there
> (Apache DBCP, for example), most people who need the JDBC driver don't
> need another connection pool and statement cache.
>
Well, there is one application server which does not (Sun's).
> As a separate module, the pool and the cache could get a wider
> audience.
> You could use it with different databases and JDBC drivers in addition
> to PostgreSQL. And it wouldn't be tied to PostgreSQL driver release
> cycle, and vice versa.
I'd argue why bother at all since DBCP exists.
Dave
>
> --
> Heikki Linnakangas
> EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com