Re: RE: [xml-dev] Java: interface methods with same name and signature]
- Yes, I agree this is a prob. Look at this for more info:
Bad, bad. But I don't know if it's a prob in this case. I don't think that
Connection and PooledConnection are meant to be implemented on the same
Consider the fact that PooledConnection has a getConnection method. The docs
say that this returns a Connection interface which is to be used
Just thought that was interesting.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ronald Bourret" <rpbourret@...>
Sent: Friday, October 26, 2001 16:12
Subject: [Fwd: RE: [xml-dev] Java: interface methods with same name and
> Looks like we're out of luck. I think what we'll do is define our own
> interface similar to PooledConnection but change the name of the close()
> method to closeUnderlyingConnection(). Same thing on PooledStatement
> -- Ron
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @... address at http://mail.yahoo.com
- Sean wrote:
> I don't think thatThey're not designed to be implemented on the same object, but doing so
> Connection and PooledConnection are meant to be implemented on the same
fits well in our design. Let's just change the name of PooledConnection
to PooledConn and change the names of the colliding methods to
closeActualConnection and getActualConnection. We'll need to make the
same changes in PooledStatement (rename to PooledStmt for consistency).