On 1/19/06, Stefan Guggisberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > alternatively you could still use an embedded derby database but > using SimpleDbPersistenceManager instead of DerbyPersistenceManager. > note that in this case you would have to exlicitly shutdown the embedded > derby database yourself.
this is what i was slowly convincing myself to try, so i'm glad to hear that i was on the right track :) > i don't think that that would be a good idea. see alternatives above. yeah, i was confusing myself a bit. i noticed that SimpleDbPersistenceManager.close and DbFileSystem.close close their connections, and somehow i had the impression that all of these components shared a single connection, so i was worried that i'd still have one component dropping the connection for all the others. but now i realize that each of these components maintains its own connection and that i was scaring myself for nothing ;) by the way, a colleague asked yesterday if there would be any benefit to using connection pooling for these components. i assume that you'd have implemented them with pooling from the get-go if that had been the appropriate thing to do. is there any reasoning worth sharing in that regard? thanks!
