David and Roman,

My own problem is that I am paranoid ;-) I just have this impression
that those of us like myself, Leo and Blas (hope I have understood them
both correctly) who need JDBC but not JCA are seen as people needing to
be converted to JCA.

For me full standard JDBC support is about 2 billion times more
exciting, important and interesting than any/all JCA support. In my
paranoia I keep thinking you are saying that the jdbc driver is
compromised due to the JCA support. Maybe that is not what you are meaning.

I have tried reading about JCA and to be honest 99% of it appears to me
to be hype and irrelevant to the types of web applications we are
successfully building and deploying.

Having connection pooling in the driver does sound good, but all the
transaction stuff has been fine under the jdbc support for our types of
application, any more would be completely overkill.

Ours are not "enterprise" applications if that means large, slow,
expensive, clumsy and for big corporates ;-) But they do run 24x7,
generally on a single box which is both web server and dbms.

Given that Firebird does not tend to be seen so much as an 'enterprise'
dbms (rightly or wrongly) I think that the natural userbase is less
likely to be using JCA.

>>>summary: I don't want to critize, just convince of need. A slim
>>>jdbc2-compliant type 4 driver for firebird would be useful in many
>>>cases, both OSS (majority of jakarta/xml @ apache) and custom
>>>shop.
>>
>>Maybe the key issue here is "slim". Our driver is not slim. In my
>>opinion "slim" driver is only needed when you download classes over
>>the network (JDBC in applet), but that's quite rare case nowadays. If
>>you are on the server side, you do not really care how big is driver,
>>only how fast is it. And in my opinion this is direction to go.
>
>
> I agree.
>
> So far I haven't seen any arguments that make me think that adding more
> packages is a plausible idea. It is certainly possible, but I haven't seen
> any benefits mentioned. I still think merging the jca and jdbc packages
> would have quite a few design benefits, many of them noted in the source as
> "This method should be package visibility".

I like the idea of multiple packages if it makes the code easier to
approach. I have not had time to do much but when I did look I am afraid
that I got lost quite quickly.

Please do not imagine that I am not appreciative of all the work on the
new driver, I am very happy that we are moving to the new driver in all
our development already (at least for testing) and will be even happier
if we never have to install interserver again. We have produced
firebird support for JRF and will also do so for Melati, hopefully soon.

Hoping you understand my paranoia and therefore why messages like the
ones from Blas seem very important and significant to people coming from
this point of view.

Thanks

Dave