This may be classified as OT, and if so, please ignore it or reply to me personally. 
Also if this question has already been answered I would appreciate it very much if 
anyone could send me a link: I can't come up with a good search criterion to 
google/search for.

I wrote a HttpSessionListener for our application and part of the 
sessionDestroyed(HttpSessionEvent)code involved getting a connection from our pool and 
deleting a ceratin record in a table in our database. When I tested this code locally 
this worked great but when I moved this to our server we noticed during testing that 
this code seemed to work inconsistently: It seemed to be executed sometimes and not at 
others. 

After worrying about it over the weekend, I think I figured out the problem: during 
testing we were all using the connection pool whose size we had deliberately set to 1 
to see how slow things could get. Since the sessionDestroyed code involved getting a 
connection from the pool I think it must have timed out when all of us were testing 
the application. In which case, my code simply exited the try block doing nothing 
except log (which was mistakenly turned off for this class (:(.. Anyways, this 
explanation seems to explain everything we noticed.

One way to solve thsi problem is to not use the pool for this part of the app. That 
way it doesn't matter if there's an available connection or not, this code will always 
- well, as far as possible - be executed. (In the other parts of the app, if a 
connection cannot be obtained from the pool, at least the user is made aware of it. 
The HttpSessionListener of course doesn't have that luxury..)

But I kind of feel that this is not really a clean solution..? Can somebody comment on 
why I have a funny feeling about seeking this way out..? Anybody have any better ideas 
on how to solve this problem?

As always, many thanks in advance for any insights!
Geeta

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to