Jacopo, Yes, we could even kept Common DBCP (at least in a 1st time) and use it as an alternative as you suggested. Moqui experience with this architecture seems good
Jacques From: <[email protected]> > Would you be willing to upload the patch to Jira? I could take a look > at it when I have some time. > > -Adrian > > Quoting Jacopo Cappellato <[email protected]>: > >> As a side note, we could also consider to use Atomikos as an >> alternative to commons DBCP; I have actually a local patch that >> replaces commons-dbcp+geronimoTx with Atomikos; it is mostly working >> (except for some Tx related details on some special cases I didn't >> find time to fix). This would work well on high load systems. >> >> Jacopo >> >> On Jan 26, 2013, at 11:27 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: >> >>> OK, It's not as simple as I thought, to be continued later... >>> >>> Jacques >>> >>> From: "Jacques Le Roux" <[email protected]> >>>> I guess using the standalone version it should not be a problem >>>> In >>>> http://tomcat.apache.org/tomcat-7.0-doc/jdbc-pool.html#Standalone >>>> they that it has only one dependency on tomcat-juli.jar. >>>> It shoud be then simply a replacement for Common DBCP. >>>> >>>> But I have to clarify because at >>>> http://tomcat.apache.org/tomcat-7.0-doc/jdbc-pool.html#Introduction they >>>> pretend it's a better implementation but not clearly over which >>>> version of Common DBCP (1.4 is reputed to be quite safe) >>>> Even here >>>> http://www.tomcatexpert.com/blog/2012/01/24/using-tomcat-7-jdbc-connection-pool-production >>>> And from >>>> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/4711943/tomcat-dbcp-vs-commons-dbcp >>>> From here it's even less clear >>>> http://tomcat.apache.org/tomcat-7.0-doc/jndi-datasource-examples-howto.html#Database_Connection_Pool_(DBCP)_Configurations >>>> And logAbandoned, removeAbandoned, removeAbandonedTimeout could >>>> be a important reason to stay with Common DBCP >>>> >>>> I found >>>> http://vigilbose.blogspot.fr/2009/03/apache-commons-dbcp-and-tomcat-jdbc.html >>>> that I have not read >>>> yet >>>> >>>> I will digg a bit more when I will get a chance... >>>> >>>> Jacques >>>> >>>> From: "Jacopo Cappellato" <[email protected]> >>>>> Hi Jacques, >>>>> >>>>> I didn't study the details but wouldn't this switch prevent (or >>>>> make even more difficult) deployment of OFBiz in other >>>>> application servers? >>>>> >>>>> Jacopo >>>>> >>>>> On Jan 24, 2013, at 12:30 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> I read <<The JDBC Connection Pool org.apache.tomcat.jdbc.pool is >>>>>> a replacement or an alternative to the commons-dbcp connection >>>>>> pool.>> at >>>>>> http://tomcat.apache.org/tomcat-7.0-doc/jdbc-pool.html#Introduction >>>>>> >>>>>> I did not get into feasability details yet >>>>>> http://tomcat.apache.org/tomcat-7.0-doc/jdbc-pool.html#Standalone >>>>>> >>>>>> Opinions? >>>>>> >>>>>> Jacques >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >> >> > > >
