> From: Peter Royal [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > On Wednesday 10 July 2002 09:51 am, Vadim Gritsenko wrote: > > > Think of the design practicality. If a store were poolable, you have > > > no guarantee of getting a hold of the store that has the object you > > > placed in it again. You would be SOL. > > > > With the exception of SQL store, XML:DB store, filesystem store, FTP > > store, etc. > > Which could all be ThreadSafe easily :)
That's not the point. I can come up with non-threadsafe store easily (say, JMS publisher is not thread safe by specification). Point is either Store interface extends ThreadSafe or it is *clearly* marked with *huge* letters that container *assumes* that all stores are threadsafe. Vadim -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
