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=17968>. 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=17968 Allow zero idle objects in GenericObjectPool ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2003-03-13 20:22 ------- I understand that it isn't really a pool. We are building software that includes the capability to pool LDAP connections. In one deployment the particular LDAP server doesn't play well with pooled connections, so we need Factory-like behavior. In another deployment of the same system we want to take advantage of pooling. Rather than have a Factory provider and a Pool provider, if the Pool provider supported a base case of no idle objects, we could ship with just the Pool provider and cover the gamut from factory behavior to unlimited pool size. The utility of the GenericObjectPool in our application is that its behavior is so configurable so that during deployment choices as to pooling behavior can be fine tuned to produce a varied range of behavior - except the base case of zero idle objects. As was pointed out, the javadoc is inconsistent in describing what the contract is for maxIdle - negative in one case and non-positive in another to indicate unlimited idle objects. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
