From: "Paul Ranson" 

But implementing your 'proper pooling mechanism' is far from trivial. How
does the pool know you're done with a connection? You have to tell it. A
bit analagous to new/delete that. Hmm. Cue the tired programmer syndrome.
Or let the compiler use a destructor to do the work.

So why doesn't Java have destructors? I can't find a good reason.

Paul

"Adam"  wrote in message
news:428b4415$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> Paul Ranson wrote:
>
>> I'm sure you actually know this stuff but a C++ programmer can write (or
>> if (s)he's one of the incompetent 'really only suitable for Java'
>> types...)
>
>
> ROFLMAO. As in "he's too old to learn anything new & moving
from C & Cobol
> to C++ nearly killed him so leave him maintaining the legacy kit where
> eee's appy".
>
>
>> have written a class that manages a database channel and releases it in
>> its destructor. Now the compiler does the hard work. This has nothing to
>> do with memory management. AFAIK Java has the concept of scopes but not
>> any deterministic way for an object to know when it's gone out of scope.
>> The C# people just seem to be be perverse about this.
>>
>
> Gee so you have to close a connection. Heck use a proper pooling mechanism
> & this isn't a problem anyway as the pool handles maintaining the conns to
> the db.
>
>> So, literally, C++ users don't have to release channels to databases, and
>> generally they have to spend very little time indeed worrying about
>> allocating or releasing memory. They can even use GC if they wish,
>> perhaps under the aegis of .NET...
>>
>
> Gosh the shock wll kill most of them given their age & infirmity.
>
> Adam
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5