The product I work on happily makes use of 100+ threads over 1 connection in certain situations where multiple threads are evaluating different data points which need to have the same transaction visibility. So far, H2 is decent at this.
Chris On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 8:23 PM, James Gregurich <[email protected]>wrote: > consider... > > public synchronized void close() throws SQLException { > > To me, it stands to reason that in a process, one should logically be using > a connection-per-thread pattern rather than sharing a connection over > several threads. As a result, my gut here says leave the synchronized out > here....there is no need for a connection to have access to it serialized. > Why have the extra mutex use here when in general, proper use, it isn't > needed. > > Is there some legitimate reason that I'm not aware of why one would must > have a single connection shared over multiple threads? > > > -James > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "H2 Database" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]<h2-database%[email protected]> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/h2-database?hl=en. > -- C. Schanck -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "H2 Database" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/h2-database?hl=en.
