commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mark Thomas <>
Subject Re: [pool][dbcp] Ongoing saga of setFactory
Date Sun, 03 Jul 2011 19:32:06 GMT
On 26/06/2011 01:05, Phil Steitz wrote:
> On 6/25/11 4:28 PM, Mark Thomas wrote:
>> On 17/06/2011 09:02, Mark Thomas wrote:
>>> On 17/06/2011 00:32, Gary Gregory wrote:
>>>> I think 2.0 is the opportunity to do this right. Almost like we were
>>>> designing this from scratch.
>>>> Making the factory an invariant of the pool sounds good.
>>>> Otoh If a setFactory method exists it should be implemented fully. The
>>>> throw an exception impl is pretty "smelly".
>>> I agree that it is smelly. I'm not sure we can change this without a
>>> huge amount of work in DBCP.
>> I think largely due to the clean-up Phil has already done in DBCP, this
>> is now manageable. I have just done this for GOP and will do the same
>> for GKOP next (exact timing TBD).
> +1 - definitely better.  Will test and review and if I get to if
> before you, handle GKOP.   Thanks for doing this.

Looking at this, I can't see a way of doing this without introducing a
new interface StatementPoolFactory that extends KeyedObjectPoolFactory
and adds a setPoolingConnection() method (or something along those lines

The names may well change as the refactoring evolves and we add generics
support to DBCP but this should do for now.


To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message