commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From John McNally <>
Subject Re: Re[2]: [dbcp] Do we need Referenceable?
Date Wed, 09 Jul 2003 15:37:18 GMT
On Tue, 2003-07-08 at 22:53, Anton Tagunov wrote:
> Hello John!
> JM> I am confused (and it has been awhile since I last looked at what is
> JM> required).  A DataSource should implement at least one of Referencable
> JM> and Serializable; the specification recommends both.  Are you advocating
> JM> that we implement neither?
> Yes. But probably I really do not understand something essential.
> Disclaimer: yet have not read all JNDI spec though.
> Okay, imagine we have a separate Factory and Product.
> Factory is ObjectFactory, it creates Product.
> You say it is recommended that Product implements Referenceable
> or Serializable. But how can this be utilized?
> I believe there is only one way for it:
> if we have an object of type Product
>     Product product;
> and we have a writeable object of class javax.naming.Context
>     Context context;
> then we may call
>     context.bind( ..., product );
> and instead of storing the product itself the context will
> store either a reference to it, obtained via
>     product.getReference();
> or product's serialized form.

That sounds like a good description.

> With Tomcat we're in a different position.
> Tomcat takes ResourceParams and unconditionally creates
> a Reference object all by itself populating it with
> the config data. This Reference also contains
> the factory class we have configured.

What happens if tomcat changes its process to use the standard jndi
pattern described above?  What about a developer wishing to use dbcp
with another servlet container or app server?  Why are you advocating
that dbcp tie itself exclusively to implementation details of tomcat? 
(btw, i do use tomcat almost exclusively myself).
> But what use for our product to implement Referenceable then?
> It will never have Context.bind() called on it.

How can you presume that?

> So I'm for implementing neither Referenceable nor Serializable.
> In fact BasicDataSourceFactory/BasicDataSource implement none
> of this and work find with Tomcat.
> AT> As I understand Tomcat JNDI resource infrastructure, it is enough
> AT> to have an object that implements javax.naming.spi.ObjectFactory
> JM> Are you saying that we can assume that if we meet tomcat's requirements
> JM> for binding to its jndi implementation, that we will meet the
> JM> requirements for a generic jndi implementation?  Or that we should only
> JM> worry about tomcat's version?
> Let's face it. Tomcat makes such a specialized use of the Reference
> object that our factories this way or other fit only into Tomcat.

I don't understand the basis for that statement.  You appear to be
advocating changes to require only use in tomcat, but jdbc2pool is not
currently written that way.

john mcnally

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

View raw message