Kris,
I see no reason to keep this around.
--Barry
-----Original Message-----
From: pgsql-jdbc-owner@postgresql.org
[mailto:pgsql-jdbc-owner@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Kris Jurka
Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2005 8:49 PM
To: pgsql-jdbc@postgresql.org
Subject: [JDBC] Removing our datasource/pooling implementation.
Having received another report[1] of the lack of robustness of our
pooling
implementation I think we should scrap our datasource and pooling
implementation. I previously advocated keeping it around because it
"basically worked" and didn't really cost us anything to keep it. Now
we're aware that it doesn't really work and I for one don't want to
spend
time fixing it when there are better options out there.
I spent some time today testing jakarta's dbcp[2] and I couldn't find
anything our code does that it cannot and there are plenty of additional
features. Dynamic pool sizing, removing broken connections, and even
statement pooling are available. I was impressed.
Would anyone like to make a case for keeping our implementation around?
Kris Jurka
[1] http://gborg.postgresql.org/project/pgjdbc/bugs/bugupdate.php?1109
[2] http://jakarta.apache.org/commons/dbcp/
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly