The ActiveMQ team suggest that we do not implement our own pooling
logic in OpenEJB 3 since modern resource adapters already implement
pooling, so you end up with a very inefficient double pooling system
== poor performance. We do have a instance limit per container,
which limits the number of mdb instances that can be acquired and is
effectively the max pool size.
As with all configurations in OpenEJB 3 (and 1), this configuration
is at the container level, because we have found that normal case is
users want several EJBs to have the same configuration. When a user
wants a one off configuration for an EJB, they create a container for
that single bean (very easy).
So, I think we already have what these users need.
-dain
On Jun 17, 2007, at 11:12 PM, Mohammad Nour El-Din wrote:
Yeah I agree with Jacek. We can make it like the following, the
users can
set the pool size on the MDB container to be applied on all MDB,
and each
MDB can specify its own pool size request from the server which will
override the settings of the MDB container for this MDB only, so
the users
are not required to specify pool size for each MDB alone which is
tedious.
On 6/17/07, Jacek Laskowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 6/17/07, Manu George <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
> A few oejb users have asked me if OpenEjb provides the
feature
> to set poolsize for message driven beans at the bean level. As
per my
> understanding with the current functionality this is not possible.
> What some of them want is to set poolsize for some MDBs differently
> from other MDB's and all of them may be using the same RA to
connect
> to the message broker.
> It is also there in Geronimo wishlist
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-3115. Should we
provide
> this functionality? Opinions,Thoughts ...
Why not. If it helps people and we know how to accomplish it I'd
say go
for it.
p.s. Why do you use [EMAIL PROTECTED] address? My mailbox's
rules
can catch it.
Jacek
--
Jacek Laskowski
http://www.JacekLaskowski.pl
--
Thanks
- Mohammad Nour
