cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Giacomo Pati <giac...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [C2] DataSourcese Proposal (first draft)
Date Thu, 11 Jan 2001 20:58:32 GMT
Berin Loritsch wrote:
> 
> Giacomo Pati wrote:
> 
> > Berin Loritsch wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Giacomo Pati wrote:
> >
> >>
> >
> >>
> >>> Berin Loritsch wrote:
> >
> >>>
> >
> >>>
> >>>> I added the code for a robust JdbcDataSources Proposal.
> >
> >>>> Please cross-check and pound on it.  The second phase
> >
> >>>> (J2eeDataSource) will be much simpler because we are
> >
> >>>> relying on the J2EE Container to implement the pooling.
> 
> The J2EE Container DataSource Component has been written and
> committed.
> 
> >> Kool Beans!  Please note, you can still use the archaic
> >
> >> methodology of specifying the connection parameters and
> >
> >> creating a new Connection object for EACH request.  Or
> >
> >> you can use the high powered pooled DataSources and keep
> >
> >> the configurations for the entire site in one location!
> >
> >
> >
> > Yes, I've noticed this and used it already for a little eShop. Using a
> >
> > pool of connections is the way to go for my. It dosn't make any sense
> >
> > and in fact it can be very costly to open a connection for EVERY
> >
> > request. Oracle for exaple is one of those DBs that opening a connection
> >
> > is a performance nightmare.
> 
> Question: Should we make the DataSourceComponent the only method
> for obtaining a java.sql.Connection object?  It is definitely
> encouraged.

Can we stop someone from getting an "ordinary" sql connection ?

> >> As a side note, I found that the SQLTransformer sample
> >
> >> in CVS used and closed no fewer than 11 connections--
> >
> >> no wonder it's performance lagged behind esql logicsheet!
> >
> >> Can the maintainer of the SQLTransformer work on getting
> >
> >> that down to one per connection actually needed?
> >
> > Well that piece is way old. It was a test example from Donald Ball and I
> >
> > have fixed it to make it work but this was in spring last year :/
> 
> In that case, is this something we should remove?  It seems somewhat
> redundant.

I don't know. We can 

a) vote to remove it if nobody is using it. 
b) leave it as is as long as it compiles with the rest of the code 
c) find a volunteer which improves the code

> 
> Also, I implemented the AddEmployeeAction code.

Yup. Thanks for putting flesh on the bone I've thowed in :)

Giacomo

> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: cocoon-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
> For additional commands, email: cocoon-dev-help@xml.apache.org

Mime
View raw message