Re: [Proxool-developer] Driver specific interfaces

[<chr...@em...>]

I hate to be the devils advocate here... but maybe we can find a more 
simple and generic way of doing this?

How about evaluating a full blown AOP approach instead? That is: We do 
not use proxies anomore, but simply  intercept the  methods  we  need to 
handle specially.

This will prevent us from using the disposable wrapper though (i think)...

CHR



Bill Horsman wrote:

>On Wed, 2004-03-24 at 21:41, Christian Nedregård wrote:
>
>  
>
>>Phrooh!
>>    
>>
>
>!
>
>  
>
>>Why do you consider tying your code  to a self-produced interface tied
>>to the currently exposed methods of a vendor spesific class to be more
>>robust and maintainable than tying your code to a ProxoolFacade
>>method?
>>    
>>
>
>That's not the point. By exposing the real connection people can really
>easily call close() or prepareStatement() directly. (In fact, they are
>quite likely to build Statements directly). Calling close() directly
>loses the connection forever. Building a Statement that Proxool doesn't
>know about stops Proxool resetting the connection correctly when it is
>returned to the pool. 
>
>  
>
>>Using Proxool facade saves you both the writing/maintaining of the
>>interface and the extra configration.
>>    
>>
>
>I agree with you there. I'm cautious about the extra work involved. 
>
>And I agree that tying your code to a self-written interface rather than
>the Oracle (or whatever) class is no better.
>
>- Bill
>
>
>
>-------------------------------------------------------
>This SF.Net email is sponsored by: IBM Linux Tutorials
>Free Linux tutorial presented by Daniel Robbins, President and CEO of
>GenToo technologies. Learn everything from fundamentals to system
>administration.http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id70&alloc_id638&op=click
>_______________________________________________
>Proxool-developer mailing list
>Pro...@li...
>https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/proxool-developer
>
>  
>