Mailing-List: contact issues-help@commons.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: issues@commons.apache.org
Message-ID: <594383425.1252657437591.JavaMail.jira@brutus>
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 01:23:57 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Mark Thomas (JIRA)" <jira@apache.org>
To: issues@commons.apache.org
Subject: [jira] Commented: (DBCP-300) remove synchronize access of
 createDataSource
In-Reply-To: <538932893.1252631997645.JavaMail.jira@brutus>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DBCP-300?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12754042#action_12754042 ] 

Mark Thomas commented on DBCP-300:
----------------------------------

Which version of commons-pool?
Which lock do you see contention on?

Locking is mostly a POOL rather than DBCP issue. A move to jdk 1.5 would allow the use of j.u.concurrent which will would be a significant change to the locking implementation.

> remove synchronize access of createDataSource
> ---------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: DBCP-300
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DBCP-300
>             Project: Commons Dbcp
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>    Affects Versions: 1.2.2
>         Environment: RHEL, jdk1.5.0_12, commons-dbcp 1.2.2
>            Reporter: Nikhil Singh
>
> For JDK1.5 onwards we can make the DataSource volatile and start using "double checked locking" idiom. In my performance testing I have already started seeing wait time on this lock. 

-- 
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.