commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rodney Waldhoff <>
Subject RE: DBCP status?
Date Sat, 28 Jun 2003 22:23:40 GMT
The code was buggy and added complexity both in and out of the

Some would argue that recovering from programmer error is not an
appropriate role for a component like DBCP, and for what it's worth, I
think I'm probably one of those.

That said, I think changing dbcp/pool to be more compositional and less
extend-to-customize-oriented would be a good move all around, and should
make it possible to add abandoned object recovery (or abandoned object
logging, or a host of other things) as a decorator--which should make it
orthogonal to the other implementations/concerns.

- Rod <>

On Sat, 28 Jun 2003, Noel J. Bergman wrote:

> > > - Better support/debugging for forcing connections closed after being
> > >   open for "too long"
> > This is exactly what got DBCP into trouble in the past.  I'm -1 on
> > providing any ability in DBCP to close lost connections.  DBCP should
> > provide the ability to *log* when it detects a resource leak but the
> > application is responsible for the health of the pool.
> I understand your view, but do you believe that there is no possible
> solution?  If it is just an implementation concern, I'd just as soon see
> what solution someone comes up with.  In your opinion, what are/were the
> problems in handling "abandoned" connections in DBCP?
> 	--- Noel
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message