Peter T Mount wrote:
>
> Quoting Joseph Shraibman <jks@selectacast.net>:
>
> > Michael Stephenson wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, 24 Jan 2001, Joseph Shraibman wrote:
> > >
> > > > > What was the conclusion of this discussion? Do we leave it
> > static?
> > > >
> > > > No, it cannot be static.
> > >
> > > As I see it we have three possible solutions to this problems.
> > >
> > > a) Just stop it being static, each PreparedStatement gets a new
> > > instantiation (I think this is what we've done for now).
> > > b) static ThreadLocal, each Thread gets one instantiation.
> >
> > But I think some people are still using java 1.1.x and they don't have
> > ThreadLocal.
>
> True, except the 1.1 & 1.2 implementations are different packages, so you
> simply don't do ThreadLocal in 1.1.x
>
Umm, not exactly. You can use jdbc 2 with java 1.1.x by downloading a
seperate package. I'm not sure how many people do this, but I imagine
there are a few.
--
Joseph Shraibman
jks@selectacast.net
Increase signal to noise ratio. http://www.targabot.com