commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From bugzi...@apache.org
Subject DO NOT REPLY [Bug 17968] - Allow zero idle objects in GenericObjectPool
Date Thu, 13 Mar 2003 20:22:08 GMT
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG 
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
<http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17968>.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND 
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.

http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17968

Allow zero idle objects in GenericObjectPool





------- Additional Comments From scott.finnerty@digitalevergreen.com  2003-03-13 20:22 -------
I understand that it isn't really a pool.  We are building software that 
includes the capability to pool LDAP connections.  In one deployment the 
particular LDAP server doesn't play well with pooled connections, so we need 
Factory-like behavior.  In another deployment of the same system we want to 
take advantage of pooling.  Rather than have a Factory provider and a Pool 
provider, if the Pool provider supported a base case of no idle objects, we 
could ship with just the Pool provider and cover the gamut from factory 
behavior to unlimited pool size.

The utility of the GenericObjectPool in our application is that its behavior is 
so configurable so that during deployment choices as to pooling behavior can be 
fine tuned to produce a varied range of behavior - except the base case of zero 
idle objects.

As was pointed out, the javadoc is inconsistent in describing what the contract 
is for maxIdle - negative in one case and non-positive in another to indicate 
unlimited idle objects.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org


Mime
View raw message