commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Steven Siebert <smsi...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [pool] Pool config vs. factory hierarchies.
Date Tue, 02 Nov 2010 14:05:34 GMT
Hey all,

Sorry I've been away from the discussion, I was stuck in a building with no
windows for the last week (quite literally) and had very little time to
breath.  At ApacheCon now, so have a bit of time to hack.

I caught up on the messages, and I agree with Gary as well.  What can I do
to help at this point?  I think the group decided to implement immutable
configuration classes...the pools would provide a reference in the
pools/factories and sync/reconfigure with the reconfigure()?  Is this right?
 One consideration with this is mutability of JMX, each individual change
though this interface would call reconfigure().  Now, I don't think there
would be frequent, sweeping, changes...so this probably won't be a huge
issue.  If we're going this route, JMX is a non-issue with this (just
confirming this).  Each pool would implement a MBean that would "expose" the
configuration settings as well as the pool-specific values (numWaiting, etc)
for read-only.  If this is good with the group, I look forward to
helping/completing this so I can finalize a patch for the JMX =)

S

On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 3:33 AM, Simone Tripodi <simone.tripodi@gmail.com>wrote:

> Hi all, Phil,
> thanks for the explanations, very appreciated, I join Gary on saying
> that maybe my thoughts on Pool are based on incorrect assumptions.
> Assembling thought from various email and this thread IMHO starts
> being a little difficult, If we could resume all that thoughts in a
> wiki page I can take care on refactoring the code to see the design in
> action.
> WDYT?
> Have a nice day,
> Simo
>
> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
> http://www.99soft.org/
>
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 3:07 AM, Phil Steitz <phil.steitz@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 10/31/10 9:47 PM, Mark Thomas wrote:
> >>
> >> On 31/10/2010 21:36, Phil Steitz wrote:
> >>>
> >>> A radical idea that I have been considering is to propose that we
> >>> dispense with keyed pools altogether.  The DBCP need can be met without
> >>> them (see jdbc-pool)
> >>
> >> Can it? I know there are some things that DBCP can do that jdbc-pool
> >> can't such as https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49543
> >>
> >> I thought keyed pools were required for that but I haven't given it much
> >> more than about 10s thought so I could be wrong.
> >
> > For SharedPoolDataSource the way it is currently implemented, yes; but
> > similar to the statement cache, that class does not use anywhere near the
> > full features of GKOP. It does not allow you to provide a pre-configure
> GKOP
> > or support cross-pool maintenance. The only thing it really needs is
> > maxTotal enforcement and a map of GOPs.  I guess having GKOP means you
> could
> > make SPDS more full-featured, but I wonder if its not overkill.
> >
> > Probably best to keep it around if we can find a simple performant way to
> > maintain it.
> >
> > Phil
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Mark
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
> >>
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
> >
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message