RE: [Proxool-developer] Driver specific interfaces

[Bertrand R. <ber...@mo...>]

> > Oooh. Moving up the social hierachy of metaphores are we ;)
>=20
> I'm moving up yes. But I'm not so proud that I won't still=20
> speak to you. I'll still remember you when I'm famous :)
>=20

Can't follow you anympore :(

> > I'm convinced...  But please do not focus on this as a *grand* new=20
> > feature when we release. Its a good idea I agree, but vendor=20
> > flabbiness will lead to a lot of dissapointed and confused users.=20
> > Agreed?
>=20
> Agreed.
>=20

You know what ?

The pluggable ConnectionBuilder I was talking about last time may =
provide a
solution.
If required, people could build their own connection builder. This =
builder
would return an adapter around the vendor supplied connection. If this
adapter implements an interface, then it would become =
available/implemented
by Bill's disposable wrapper...

This way, the recommended approach to get access to functionalities =
exposed
by the *real* connection would be:
- if your real connection implements an Interface, then just cast the
proxool-connection to that interface;
- if not - shame on your vendor! - build your own ConnectionBuilder...

The ...getConnection() returning the *real* connection could then be =
dropped
(safer!)

?

-bertrand