Yes, my patch doesn't require any changes to existing DBCP code, it simply adds Atomikos as an option that you can enable (in place of DBCP) in entityengine.xml
Jacopo On Jan 31, 2013, at 12:08 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: > 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 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> >> >> >>
