Hey all, Sorry I've been away from the discussion, I was stuck in a building with no windows for the last week (quite literally) and had very little time to breath. At ApacheCon now, so have a bit of time to hack.
I caught up on the messages, and I agree with Gary as well. What can I do to help at this point? I think the group decided to implement immutable configuration classes...the pools would provide a reference in the pools/factories and sync/reconfigure with the reconfigure()? Is this right? One consideration with this is mutability of JMX, each individual change though this interface would call reconfigure(). Now, I don't think there would be frequent, sweeping, changes...so this probably won't be a huge issue. If we're going this route, JMX is a non-issue with this (just confirming this). Each pool would implement a MBean that would "expose" the configuration settings as well as the pool-specific values (numWaiting, etc) for read-only. If this is good with the group, I look forward to helping/completing this so I can finalize a patch for the JMX =) S On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 3:33 AM, Simone Tripodi <simone.trip...@gmail.com>wrote: > Hi all, Phil, > thanks for the explanations, very appreciated, I join Gary on saying > that maybe my thoughts on Pool are based on incorrect assumptions. > Assembling thought from various email and this thread IMHO starts > being a little difficult, If we could resume all that thoughts in a > wiki page I can take care on refactoring the code to see the design in > action. > WDYT? > Have a nice day, > Simo > > http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/ > http://www.99soft.org/ > > > > On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 3:07 AM, Phil Steitz <phil.ste...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 10/31/10 9:47 PM, Mark Thomas wrote: > >> > >> On 31/10/2010 21:36, Phil Steitz wrote: > >>> > >>> A radical idea that I have been considering is to propose that we > >>> dispense with keyed pools altogether. The DBCP need can be met without > >>> them (see jdbc-pool) > >> > >> Can it? I know there are some things that DBCP can do that jdbc-pool > >> can't such as https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49543 > >> > >> I thought keyed pools were required for that but I haven't given it much > >> more than about 10s thought so I could be wrong. > > > > For SharedPoolDataSource the way it is currently implemented, yes; but > > similar to the statement cache, that class does not use anywhere near the > > full features of GKOP. It does not allow you to provide a pre-configure > GKOP > > or support cross-pool maintenance. The only thing it really needs is > > maxTotal enforcement and a map of GOPs. I guess having GKOP means you > could > > make SPDS more full-featured, but I wonder if its not overkill. > > > > Probably best to keep it around if we can find a simple performant way to > > maintain it. > > > > Phil > > > > > >> > >> Mark > >> > >> > >> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> 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 > >
