On 23/11/2009, Phil Steitz <phil.ste...@gmail.com> wrote: > sebb wrote: > > On 22/11/2009, Phil Steitz <phil.ste...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> sebb wrote: > >> > On 22/11/2009, Phil Steitz <phil.ste...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> I am running into some problems preparing for dbcp-1.3. I would > >> >> appreciate comments / patches on any of the issues below. > >> >> > >> >> 1. Findbugs is showing some real (inconsistent synch) and not so > >> >> real (e.g. serialization issues on classes that IMO should not be > >> >> serializable, but we can't fix until 2.0). The full report is here: > >> >> http://commons.apache.org/dbcp/findbugs.html > >> >> I would appreciate suggestions/patches/commits for what to fix and > how. > >> > > >> > org.apache.commons.dbcp.AbandonedTrace$AbandonedObjectException.format > >> > - not a problem, as the code is synch. on format, just disable the > report > >> > >> > >> +1 > >> > >> > > org.apache.commons.dbcp.PoolableConnectionFactory._connFactory,_pool,_validationQuery > >> > => just make these volatile. > >> > >> > >> +1 - all we can do without breaking compat > >> > >> > org.apache.commons.dbcp.PoolingConnection.createKey(String, byte) > >> > might ignore java.lang.Exception (lines218, 229, 240 and 251) > >> > No idea > >> > >> > >> This is silly - exceptions potentially thrown by getCatalog are > >> (intentionally) swallowed. > > > > However the methods should only catch SQLException, not Exception. > > > +1 - and that we can fix. > > > > > _catalog should probably have been final and private. Or could > > probably be dropped altogether, as it does not seem to be necessary. > > > I think the field is necessary - at least there was a BZ ticket that > caused it to be added ([Bug 27246] - PreparedStatement cache should > be different depending on the Catalog). Agree it and other key > fields should be final. Unfortunately, they are all protected now, > so to fix is to break.
Yes, making protected fields private & final will change part of the API. However, is that part of the API essential from the user point of view? I.e. are there use-cases that require it? > > > >> > PoolingConnection$PStmtKey.PoolingConnection$PStmtKey._resultSetType > >> > could be null and is guaranteed to be dereferenced in > >> > org.apache.commons.dbcp.PoolingConnection.makeObject(Object) > >> > This looks like a bug; just check for null in the second condition? > >> > >> > >> Should never happen, but will refactor to explicitly avoid. > >> > >> > Class org.apache.commons.dbcp.cpdsadapter.DriverAdapterCPDS defines > >> > non-transient non-serializable instance field logWriter > >> > Just make the logWriter transient. > >> > >> > >> +1 > >> > >> > _pool synch: add synch or make volatile. > >> > >> > >> I guess make volatile is safest. > >> > >>> <aside> > >> > Seems to me a lot of these synch. problems would be avoided if the > >> > variables did not have set() methods - why are there set() methods for > >> > fields that are provided in the constructors? What is the use case for > >> > this? > >> > </aside> > >> > >> > >> Agree strongly with comment. BasicDataSource is crippled by this. > >> It is effectively immutable once getConnection has been called, but > >> the public setters and protected fields make it impossible to fix > >> without breaking compatibility. See DBCP-300 for example of how > >> this causes needless performance problems. For Tomcat, I have been > >> thinking about providing an alternative JNDI factory that returns a > >> PoolingDataSource instead. > >> > >> > >> > > >> > It would be helpful to know which classes are intended to be > >> > thread-safe, as it's not clear whether the potential synch. problems > >> > are likely to occur in normal usage or not. > >> > > >> > For example the class SharedPoolDataSource: the field "pool" is > >> > sometimes synch., and sometimes not, but the fields maxActive, > >> > maxWait, maxIdle are not synch. at all. > >> > >> > >> Here again, all of these should be immutable properties set by the > >> constructor. > >> > >> > The use of synchronization seems rather haphazard to me. > >> > >> > >> harsh but true ;) Comment above really covers it - the needlessly > >> sloppy synch is in most cases due to overly mutable - and sometimes > >> directly exposed - properties and no concern for synch issues that > >> are not likely to occur in normal use. I am +1 for fixing anything > >> that we can pre-2.0 subject to compat and performance constraints. > >> > >> >> 2. We can't compile commons-pool-1.3.jar against JDK 1.6 (JDBC 4) > >> >> and expect it to work for JDK 1.4/1.5 (JDBC 3) clients (at least not > >> >> as the code stands today). So we need to create two jar artifacts. > >> > > >> > How difficult would it be to support both in the same jar? > >> > >> > >> I would like to do that if we could do it safely. I have not been > >> able to get the 1.6-compiled jar to successfully run the tests > >> compiled against 1.5. > >> > >> The failure that I get when using Ant to compile and execute the > >> tests (commenting out the 1.6-stuff in the test classes) using a > >> 1.6-built jar is strange: > >> > >> [junit] Exception in thread "Thread-16" > >> java.lang.NoClassDefFoundError: java/sql/SQLClientInfoException > >> [junit] at > >> > org.apache.commons.dbcp.PoolableConnectionFactory.makeObject(PoolableConnectionFactory.java:592) > >> [junit] at > >> > org.apache.commons.dbcp.BasicDataSource.validateConnectionFactory(BasicDataSource.java:1537) > >> [junit] at > >> > org.apache.commons.dbcp.BasicDataSource.createPoolableConnectionFactory(BasicDataSource.java:1526) > >> [junit] at > >> > org.apache.commons.dbcp.BasicDataSource.createDataSource(BasicDataSource.java:1374) > >> [junit] at > >> > org.apache.commons.dbcp.BasicDataSource.getConnection(BasicDataSource.java:1038) > >> [junit] at > >> > org.apache.commons.dbcp.TestBasicDataSource.getConnection(TestBasicDataSource.java:44) > >> [junit] at > >> > org.apache.commons.dbcp.TestConnectionPool.newConnection(TestConnectionPool.java:84) > >> [junit] at > >> > org.apache.commons.dbcp.TestConnectionPool$TestThread.run(TestConnectionPool.java:595) > >> [junit] at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:613) > >> > >> Strange as the line number in PCF.makeObject and missing class makes > >> no sense. > >> > >> > >> Thanks, Sebb! > >> > >> >> The question is which one gets the 1.3 name, what is the other > >> >> named and how do we package the distros? > >> >> > >> >> 3. I assume it is OK at this point to drop the nojdbc3 Ant target > >> >> and compiler flags for JDBC 2. > >> >> > >> >> TIA > >> >> > >> >> Phil > >> >> > >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > >> >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > >> >> > >> >> > >> > > >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > >> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > >> > > >> > >> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > >> > >> > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
