On 16 June 2011 17:25, Phil Steitz <phil.ste...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yesterday I fixed some [dbcp] "problems" caused by the new [pool]
> requirement that setFactory can only be called once. The quotes are
> because most of the problems were redundant calls to setFactory.
> The reason that we left setFactory in [pool] is that [dbcp]'s
> connection factory constructors call setFactory on the pool passed
> to them. It is an easy "mistake" to create a pool, then create a
> connection factory and then do pool.setFactory(factory). I
> eliminated all of these usages from within [dbcp], but I bet a fair
> amount of user code will similarly blow up when people upgrade.
AIUI, the upgrade does require code to be changed because of the package rename?
If so, can we not drop the setFactory method and provide it as a
constructor parameter?
That would produce a compile-time error, rather than failing at run-time.
> I hate to keep backsliding here, but maybe we should to this in GOP
> setFactory:
>
> synchronized (factoryLock) {
> if (this.factory == null) {
> this.factory = factory;
> - } else {
> + } else if (this.factory != factory) {
> throw new IllegalStateException("Factory
> already set");
> }
> }
>
> Phil
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
