Newbie: jdbc + gcj 4 win32

[Jeff Sturm]

Thomas Reilly wrote:
> If you do make some progress I'd also be interested to see how well a
> CNI database bridge performs.  Type IV drivers are primarily popular
> because of the difficulty of implementing a stable JNI based driver
> (I'm not convinced its even possible).  I'm not sure the exact reason
> but I work at a web shop and we tell all our customers that if they
> don't use type IV drivers they are asking for trouble.  For those that
> don't know type IV drivers are pure java because they do all
> communication with the database through a socket.

It's really the other way around... type 4 drivers do all communication
with the database through a socket because they are pure java.  TCP
sockets are the only realistic way to perform IPC from Java.

Type 2 drivers are problematic due to strange interactions with the
thread support and signal handling in many native DB libraries.  Oracle
OCI for example grabs the signal handler for SIGINTR so you can't abort
with ctrl-C.  But it is fast, partly because it avoids network overhead
for local database connections.

> With CNI the socket I/O could be eliminated and you wouldn't have to
> do the connection pooling.  You would have to know how to use the
> databases C/C++ interfaces so it wouldn't be a walk in the park.

Why should CNI eliminate connection pooling?  I think all JDBC drivers
benefit from connection pooling, whether native or pure Java.

-- 
Jeff Sturm
jsturm@sigma6.com