We've run our tests and check your fix. All is OK, there is no more connection leaks without or without evictor. Thank you very much.
jfjames wrote: > > Thank you Dain for your reactivity. I'm out of my office traveling and > having meetings for two days. A colleague has done some tests which > confirms that your fix is OK. I've planned to confirm by doing my own > tests on Thursday. > > Dain Sundstrom wrote: >> >> I think I have finally fixed this issue. Can you retest and let me >> know if it is working for you? >> >> Thanks, >> >> -dain >> >> On Jun 16, 2008, at 10:56 AM, Dain Sundstrom wrote: >> >>> On Jun 13, 2008, at 8:43 AM, jfjames wrote: >>> >>>> My intention was to find an alternative to DBCP ready to be used in >>>> production with OpenEJB. Since it doesn't exist, I have to change >>>> my mind. >>>> If you agree to commit our patch quickly, I'm OK to use DBCP in >>>> production. >>> >>> Quick status update. I started working on the patch, but it isn't >>> as simple as applying it.... When it comes to the DelegateConnection >>> class, it should appear to the user to be an plain old Connection >>> without any special pooling properties. This mean that when the >>> DelegateConnection is closed, it must appear to the caller that the >>> connection is actually closed, so methods like isClosed should >>> return true. >>> >>> Instead of changing the isClosed method, I'll change the reallyClose >>> method so it only checks the real connection before closing. >>> >>> -dain >> >> >> > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/DataSource-configuration-for-production-tp17695975p18012556.html Sent from the OpenEJB User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
