|
I'm afraid in the big scheme of things, it may be oversimplifying. There's no saying that the data I use for the application won't reside in multiple dbs on many systems in different types of DBs. And where in my application should I do this? Do I make it a prerequisite when using this set of classes that you open a connection and pass it around to all the objects? It all sounds good on paper, but implementing is where it seems the problem is. Brad On Wed, 9 Jan 2002 22:41:30 -0000 "Price, Chris" <chris_price@nsb.co.uk> wrote: > This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader > does not understand > this format, some or all of this message may not be > legible. > -- > [ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ] > Brad, > > At a risk of massively over-simplifying things, if you > have a single user > application over an access database, why do you ever need > to open more than > one Connection? > > Once open, store it in a static field somewhere, and all > your classes should > be able to use it. > > This should work for any client/server type project, as > the client JVM only > needs to worry about it's own connection to the Database > (The Database has > to do the hard bit of managing multiple users). > > Connection pooling seems like a hammer to crack a nut in > this case. > > Chris.
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.