From: "Paul Ranson" 

So your code has to check the connection before every call? How does the
pool determine that the connection is not active?

Seems like  you're leaping through hoops to avoid doing it the easy way.

So why does Java not have destructors? Somebody must be able to say. I
think it is because the original designers hadn't considered them in any
other context than memory management. And now they're stuck...

Paul

"Adam Flinton"  wrote in message
news:428ba225$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> Paul Ranson wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>
> Nah mate...pool has a scavenge if not active mech & your code simply does
> an if null getConnection before launching into some sql.
>
> OK so instead of a memleak the tired progger will give you a null pointer
> error but that can be found & flush fairly fast.
>
>
>> So why doesn't Java have destructors? I can't find a good reason.
>>
>
> Why does a managed vm need to let the coder do that?
>
> Heck if you're writing native win32 c++ you're in a managed sandbox too,
> the only diff being the sandbox is the OS.
>
> Adam

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