RE: Requests, or Tokens, or Tickets, or Prepared Lookups?

[Peter Donald <pe...@apache.org>]

At 09:56 AM 6/5/2002 -0400, you wrote:
>  > Due to this we get into discussions such as
> > * Component/Service Manager should do pooling (erk!!!!)
>
>The Container needs to take care of that.  Many containers do perform
>pooling (anybody ever here of EJBs, Servlets, DataSources, etc.?).
>We need to make the mechanism invisible to the user though.

Orthogonal concepts. Pooling, activation, passivation etc are all 
orthogonal concepts to resource access. You can still do these all the time 
without compromising resource access.

Consider JNDI - massively slow in most implementations. However that has 
not limited scalability wrt to EJBs or servlets. In fact it has actually 
encouraged scalability as the components that need efficient access to 
underlying resources (DataSource for JDBC connections or Connector 
architecture for other resource connections) all work fine.

> > * Component/Service Manager should be more efficient (double erk!!!!)
>
>It really does.  Even if it is more efficient to *use* or develop
>against.

Your right - I will be more than happy to remove release() method anytime 
now - that will save a whole bunch of people misusing CMs and then getting 
concerned that CMs don't match their use case.

Seriously - go out into other frameworks and try to identify one which 
mixes directory service with resource management. There isn't any software 
systems that do this that I know off. So why do you think you know better 
than the rest of these peeps? :)


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>

RE: Requests, or Tokens, or Tickets, or Prepared Lookups?

[Leo Sutic <le...@inspireinfrastructure.com>]

> From: Stephen McConnell [mailto:mcconnell@osm.net] 
> 
> Peter Donald wrote:
> 
> >
> >> > * Component/Service Manager should be more efficient (double 
> >> > erk!!!!)
> >>
> >> It really does.  Even if it is more efficient to *use* or develop 
> >> against.
> >
> >
> > Your right - I will be more than happy to remove release() method
> > anytime now - that will save a whole bunch of people misusing CMs
and 
> > then getting concerned that CMs don't match their use case. 
> 
> 
> +1

-1 : Removes too much functionality for not enough gain. If people are 
misusing CM, too bad. Even without a release() method you'll have
them do so.

/LS


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>

Re: Requests, or Tokens, or Tickets, or Prepared Lookups?

[Stephen McConnell <mc...@osm.net>]

Peter Donald wrote:

>
>> > * Component/Service Manager should be more efficient (double erk!!!!)
>>
>> It really does.  Even if it is more efficient to *use* or develop
>> against.
>
>
> Your right - I will be more than happy to remove release() method 
> anytime now - that will save a whole bunch of people misusing CMs and 
> then getting concerned that CMs don't match their use case. 


+1

-- 

Stephen J. McConnell

OSM SARL
digital products for a global economy
mailto:mcconnell@osm.net
http://www.osm.net




--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>