> > Danny and Kenny. With respect to DBCP, I don't necessarily have
anything
> > against it, but JDBC v3 has connection pooling built-in.
> Using it changes the requirements for running James, which is quite happy
> with JDBC2 ATM.
I understand. As I said, there seem to be a set of other issues that would
impact the selection of the connection pooling framework. For example,
Serge seems to be pushing for JDK 1.4.1 for other things, and JDK 1.4.1
includes JDBC v3. I'm just suggesting that the decision on those other
areas will influence this one.
--- Noel
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
