On 15 December 2011 08:26, Mark Thomas wrote:
> On 14/12/2011 23:12, sebb wrote:
>> On 14 December 2011 22:22, Mark Thomas wrote:
>>> On 14/12/2011 19:12, sebb wrote:
On 14 December 2011 18:29, Mark Thomas wrote:
> JNDI assumes resources are essentially beans i.e. have zero argument
>>>
On 14/12/2011 23:12, sebb wrote:
> On 14 December 2011 22:22, Mark Thomas wrote:
>> On 14/12/2011 19:12, sebb wrote:
>>> On 14 December 2011 18:29, Mark Thomas wrote:
JNDI assumes resources are essentially beans i.e. have zero argument
constructors and getters/setters. If this is not th
On 14 December 2011 22:22, Mark Thomas wrote:
> On 14/12/2011 19:12, sebb wrote:
>> On 14 December 2011 18:29, Mark Thomas wrote:
>>> JNDI assumes resources are essentially beans i.e. have zero argument
>>> constructors and getters/setters. If this is not the case then some
>>> extra plumbing is
On 14/12/2011 19:12, sebb wrote:
> On 14 December 2011 18:29, Mark Thomas wrote:
>> JNDI assumes resources are essentially beans i.e. have zero argument
>> constructors and getters/setters. If this is not the case then some
>> extra plumbing is required. The further G[K]OP gets from a JavaBean the
sebb wrote:
>This is a parallel thread to the one about PoolFactory implementations.
>
>I'm trying to establish the mutability needs of the
>[Keyed]ObjectPool implementations, i.e.
>
>Generic[Keyed]ObjectPool
>
>I've looked at DBCP 1.4, which uses POOL 1.x.
>
>SharedPoolDataSource.registerPool()
On Dec 14, 2011, at 14:12, sebb wrote:
> On 14 December 2011 18:29, Mark Thomas wrote:
>> On 14/12/2011 12:10, sebb wrote:
>>> This is a parallel thread to the one about PoolFactory implementations.
>>>
>>> I'm trying to establish the mutability needs of the
>>> [Keyed]ObjectPool implementations
On 14 December 2011 18:29, Mark Thomas wrote:
> On 14/12/2011 12:10, sebb wrote:
>> This is a parallel thread to the one about PoolFactory implementations.
>>
>> I'm trying to establish the mutability needs of the
>> [Keyed]ObjectPool implementations, i.e.
>>
>> Generic[Keyed]ObjectPool
>>
>> I've
On 14/12/2011 12:10, sebb wrote:
> This is a parallel thread to the one about PoolFactory implementations.
>
> I'm trying to establish the mutability needs of the
> [Keyed]ObjectPool implementations, i.e.
>
> Generic[Keyed]ObjectPool
>
> I've looked at DBCP 1.4, which uses POOL 1.x.
>
> SharedP
On 12/14/11 5:10 AM, sebb wrote:
> This is a parallel thread to the one about PoolFactory implementations.
>
> I'm trying to establish the mutability needs of the
> [Keyed]ObjectPool implementations, i.e.
>
> Generic[Keyed]ObjectPool
>
> I've looked at DBCP 1.4, which uses POOL 1.x.
>
> SharedPoolD
This is a parallel thread to the one about PoolFactory implementations.
I'm trying to establish the mutability needs of the
[Keyed]ObjectPool implementations, i.e.
Generic[Keyed]ObjectPool
I've looked at DBCP 1.4, which uses POOL 1.x.
SharedPoolDataSource.registerPool() creates an instance of
G
10 matches
Mail list logo