DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT <http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8620>. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8620 Closed Connection Exception on setAutoCommit [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution| |INVALID ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2002-04-29 19:03 ------- > Now I'm having another problem. When I do > call close() on my connection, the PreparedStatements > aren't being closed, unless I close them > myself. Shouldn't close() close the statements > as well? I'm not exactly sure. The JDBC JavaDocs don't seem very specific on this point, and I don't find any mention of it in the JBDC 2.x specs. Here's the JDBC 3.0 specification, section 11.6.2: "Closing a Pooled Statement An application closes a pooled statement exactly the same way it closes a nonpooled statement. Whether it is pooled or not, a statement that has been closed is no longer available for use by the application, and an attempt to reuse it will cause an exception to be thrown. The following methods can close a pooled statement: * Statement.close � called by an application; if the statement is being pooled, closes the logical statement used by the application but does not close the physical statement being pooled * Connection.close � called by an application * Nonpooled connection � closes the physical connection and all statements created by that connection. This is necessary because the garbage collection mechanism is unable to detect when externally managed resources can be released. * Pooled connection � closes the logical connection and the logical statements it returned but leaves open the underlying PooledConnection object and any associated pooled statements" But that's not totally clear to me either. In your case, we're pooling connections but not statements. Should we close them in that case? I don't think we're really doing a full JDBC 3.0 connection pooling impl anyway. The best practice would probably be to close the statements on your own anyway. Certainly the current DBCP impl won't make an effort to close them for you (although the underlying driver implementations might on a real close). Someone with a better understanding of the spec than I will need to tell me if there's a bug there or not. If there's a bug, please submit submit it as a new Bugzilla entry. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
