commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Simone Tripodi <simonetrip...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [DBCP] The plan for v2
Date Sat, 23 Apr 2011 15:07:11 GMT
GREAT, thanks Phil!!!
I'm going to checkout the current trunk and updating pool code!!!
Have a nice weekend!!!
Simo

http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
http://www.99soft.org/



On Sat, Apr 23, 2011 at 5:04 PM, Phil Steitz <phil.steitz@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/22/11 11:20 AM, Mark Thomas wrote:
>> On 22/03/2011 17:58, Gary Gregory wrote:
>>> Hi Mark and all:
>>>
>>> It's good to hear someone is thinking about moving forward!
>>>
>>> pool2 trunk seems to me to be highly volatile based on having worked some in
>>> pool2.
>>>
>>> I've read opinions here going back and forth as to how to solidify the API
>>> or even go /back/ to the pool1 style before moving forward again.
>>>
>>> I think time would be better spent solidifying pool2. Time spent matching
>>> dbcp2 to pool2 could be a waste because, to me, pool2 feels like a moving
>>> target ATM.
>> pool2 is a moving target because a lot of the re-factoring has been an
>> academic exercise. Having a clear end user for this (Tomcat -> DBCP ->
>> POOL) should provide the direction necessary to solidify pool2. I don't
>> mind working with a moving target as long as it is moving towards a
>> clear goal. That goal for me is:
>> - Java 5 / generics
>> - fixing inconsistencies / oddities
>> - improved performance on DBCP in multi-core servers.
>>
>> It would certainly make starting dbcp2 a whole lot easier if most of the
>> pool2 re-factoring had not taken place. I think we made a mistake in not
>> pushing forward with DBCP and POOL in parallel. That said, I like a lot
>> of the pool2 changes and don't want to throw them away.
>>
>> What do folks think to the following:
>> - move pool trunk to a POOL_FUTURE branch
>> - restore pool trunk to a copy of the POOL_1_X branch
> Done.
>
> Phil
>> - rename pool package to o.a.c.pool2
>>   (in reality this would probably be a merge from POOL_FUTURE)
>> - rename dbcp packages to o.a.c.dbcp2
>> - get pool2 and dbcp2 working together
>> - get Tomcat trunk working with dbcp2
>> - go through the POOL_FUTURE changes one at a time:
>>   - merging it into pool2 trunk
>>   - updating dbcp2 trunk if necessary
>>   - testing updated dbcp2 with Tomcat
>>   - if a POOL_FUTURE change breaks DBCP/Tomcat integration in a way that
>> can't easily be fixed skip that change and leave it in POOL_FUTURE
>>
>> Mark
>>
>>> Min Java 5: +1!
>>>
>>> Gary
>>>
>>> On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 1:46 PM, Mark Thomas <markt@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Don't let the title get your hopes up. I don't have one yet, at least
>>>> not a complete one.
>>>> One of the primary driver for pool2 was to make use of
>>>> java.util.concurrent for the pool implementation and significantly
>>>> improve DBCP performance on multi-core systems (re-using ideas where we
>>>> can from Tomcat's jdbc-pool). I'm at the point where I have some time to
>>>> work on this.
>>>>
>>>> My very outline plan was as follows:
>>>> a) get DBCP working with pool2
>>>> b) run the jdbc-pool performance tests to see how much ground we need to
>>>> catch up
>>>> c) improve the pool2 implementation until we get somewhere close to
>>>> jdbc-pool
>>>>
>>>> a) is non-trival and is really the focus of this e-mail.
>>>>
>>>> Issue 1
>>>> =======
>>>> DBCP isn't going to be able to use pool2 without some major re-factoring.
>>>>
>>>> My solution is:
>>>> - copy current dbcp trunk to a branch
>>>> - rename o.a.commons.dbcp to o.a.commons.dbcp2
>>>> - update dependencies from pool to pool2
>>>> - get it working
>>>>
>>>> Issue 2
>>>> =======
>>>> DBCP also ships with the o.a.commons.jocl package.
>>>>
>>>> There have been no jocl related questions on the users list since 2007.
>>>> To prevent clashes between dbcp1 and dbcp2 I propose to simply drop JOCL
>>>> support in dbcp2.
>>>>
>>>> Issue 3
>>>> =======
>>>> Minimum Java version.
>>>>
>>>> Supporting multiple JDBC API versions is a nuisance. I propose switching
>>>> to a jdbc-pool style proxy approach. I also propose a minimum Java
>>>> version of 5 to align with pool2.
>>>>
>>>> Issue 4
>>>> =======
>>>> Will the new dbcp work with Servlet containers?
>>>>
>>>> There were some concerns in this area with the pool2 re-factoring. This
>>>> needs to be tested but my turn out to be a non-issue.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think these 4 issues need to be resolved before there is a pool2 or
>>>> dbcp2 release.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Assuming there are no objections, I plan to start committing along these
>>>> lines in the next couple of days.
>>>>
>>>> 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
>
>

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


Mime
View raw message