Dave Cramer wrote:
> As I recall the events. The only objection to code that I submitted for
> inclusion was Heikki's objection as to where caching belonged.
I objected to not having a wrapper at all and using the driver's
statements directly. That produces semantically incorrect behaviour,
that's unacceptable for the main driver.
If you're fixing that great but it's quite a different beast to the
original implementation and I haven't seen a new version of it yet.
The "is it part of the driver or not" question is more of a maintenance
issue than anything. If it is packaged separately it can be maintained
more easily by whoever cares about it (you, Josh, whoever). If it's part
of the driver you're going to run into the barrier that whenever it
needs an update you will need to build consensus amongst the JDBC
maintainers, which so far you don't have a very good record of doing.
I still have not seen an argument as to why it needs to be part of the
driver at all, and "not part of the driver" certainly seems simpler and
more flexible to me. Did you finish those benchmarks of in-driver versus
out-of-driver implementations yet?
-O
